Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutE - Cultural Resources Study CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY FOR THE SLOVER AND CYPRESS AVENUE PROJECT CITY OF FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA APNs 251-163-01 to -10 and -13 and 251-164-03, -04, -10, -11, -12, -14, -15, -16, -20, -23, and -25 Lead Agency: City of Fontana Community Development Department 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, California 92335 Preparer: Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064 ___________________ Signature Project Proponent: T&B Planning, Inc. 3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92602 January 27, 2022 Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ i Archaeological Database Information Authors: Jillian LH. Conroy, Jennifer R.K. Stropes, and Brian F. Smith Consulting Firm: Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064 (858) 679-8218 Client/Project Proponent: T&B Planning, Inc. 3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92602 Report Date: January 27, 2022 Report Title: Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (APNs 251-163-01 to -10 and -13 and 251-164-03, -04, -10, -11, -12, -14, -15, -16, -20, -23, and -25) Type of Study: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey and Historic Structure Evaluation Updated Site: None New Sites: Temp-1 (10349 Oleander Avenue), Temp-2 (10367 Oleander Avenue), Temp-3 (10375 Oleander Avenue), Temp-4 (10475 Oleander Avenue), Temp-5 (16310 Boyle Avenue), Temp-6 (16321 Boyle Avenue), Temp-7 (16326 Boyle Avenue), and Temp-8 (16398 Boyle Avenue) USGS Quadrangle: Fontana, California (7.5 minute) Acreage: 29.82 acres Key Words: Survey; historic buildings at 10349, 10367, 10375, and 10475 Oleander Avenue recorded as Temp-1 to Temp-4 and historic buildings at 16310, 16321, 16326, and 16398 Boyle Avenue recorded as Temp-5 to Temp-8; monitoring of grading is recommended; historic buildings not significant and preservation not recommended. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii Table of Contents Section Description Page MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT ....................................................................... vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1.0–1 1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................1.0–1 1.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................1.0–1 1.3 Cultural Setting – Archaeological Perspectives ................................................1.0–5 1.3.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................1.0–6 1.3.2 Results of the Archaeological Records Search ........................................1.0–17 1.4 Applicable Regulations .....................................................................................1.0–19 1.4.1 California Environmental Quality Act .....................................................1.0–19 2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN .............................................................................................2.0–1 3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS ....................................................................3.0–1 3.1 Methods.............................................................................................................3.0–1 3.1.1 Archival Research ....................................................................................3.0–1 3.1.2 Survey Methods ........................................................................................3.0–1 3.1.3 Historic Structure Assessment .................................................................3.0–1 3.2 Results of the Field Survey ...............................................................................3.0–2 3.3 Historic Structure Analysis ...............................................................................3.0–2 3.3.1 History of the Project Area ......................................................................3.0–7 3.3.2 Property Ownership History ....................................................................3.0–22 3.3.3 Description of Surveyed Resources .........................................................3.0–41 3.3.4 Significance Evaluations ..........................................................................3.0–76 3.4 Discussion/Summary ........................................................................................3.0–104 4.0 INTERPRETATION OF RESOURCE IMPORTANCE AND IMPACT IDENTIFICATION ..................................................................................................4.0–1 4.1 Resource Importance ........................................................................................4.0–1 4.2 Impact Identification .........................................................................................4.0–1 5.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS – MITIGATION MEASURES AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ...............................................................................5.0–1 5.1 Mitigation Measures .........................................................................................5.0–1 5.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................................5.0–1 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED .......................6.0–1 7.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................7.0–1 Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii List of Appendices Appendix A – Resumes of Key Personnel Appendix B – Site Record Forms* Appendix C – Archaeological Records Search Results* Appendix D – NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results* Appendix E – Historic Maps * Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix List of Figures Figure Description Page Figure 1.1–1 General Location Map ...................................................................................1.0–2 Figure 1.1–2 Project Location Map (USGS) ......................................................................1.0–3 Figure 1.1–3 Site Plan .........................................................................................................1.0–4 Figure 3.2–1 Cultural Resource Location Map ...................................................................3.0–5 Figure 3.3–1 Historic Structure Location Map ...................................................................3.0–6 Figure 3.3–2 1891 Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company Subdivision Map ..................3.0–9 Figure 3.3–3 1929 to 1933 Lot Book Map Detail ...............................................................3.0–11 Figure 3.3–4 1948 to 1951 Lot Book Map Detail ...............................................................3.0–14 Figure 3.3–5 1955 to 1961 Update to the 1951 Assessor’s Parcel Map .............................3.0–17 Figure 3.3–6 1969 to 1975 Update to the 1951 Assessor’s Parcel Map .............................3.0–19 Figure 3.3–7 Current Assessor’s Parcel Map .....................................................................3.0–21 List of Plates Plate Description Page Plate 3.2–1 Overview of the northeast area of the project, facing north ............................3.0–3 Plate 3.2–2 Overview of the southern portion of the project, facing west ..........................3.0–3 Plate 3.2–3 Overview of the northern portion of the project, facing northeast ..................3.0–4 Plate 3.2–4 Overview of the central portion of the project, facing west ............................3.0–4 Plate 3.3–1 Andrew Jackson Pope ......................................................................................3.0–7 Plate 3.3–2 1933 Aerial Photograph ...................................................................................3.0–24 Plate 3.3–3 1938 Aerial Photograph ...................................................................................3.0–25 Plate 3.3–4 Betty Lou McCall ............................................................................................3.0–26 Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iv List of Plates (continued) Plate Description Page Plate 3.3–5 1953 Aerial Photograph ...................................................................................3.0–28 Plate 3.3–6 Harry DeWeese ................................................................................................3.0–27 Plate 3.3–7 Advertisement to rent 10367 Oleander Avenue ...............................................3.0–29 Plate 3.3–8 Jesse Weirich (male in chair) and Florence Wilson (female in chair) circa 1910 ..................................................................................................................3.0–30 Plate 3.3–9 1966 Aerial Photograph ...................................................................................3.0–31 Plate 3.3–10 Beulah McCoy ...............................................................................................3.0–34 Plate 3.3–11 1962 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................3.0–35 Plate 3.3–12 1977 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................3.0–36 Plate 3.3–13 1985 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................3.0–37 Plate 3.3–14 Charles and Frances Zaffuto and their children .............................................3.0–38 Plate 3.3–15 Clara Lulu Cannon circa 1884 .......................................................................3.0–40 Plate 3.3–16 West Façade of the 10349 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing East .............3.0–42 Plate 3.3–17 North Façade (Left) of the 10349 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing Southeast .......................................................................................................3.0–43 Plate 3.3–18 South Façade (Right) of the 10349 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing Northeast .......................................................................................................3.0–44 Plate 3.3–19 Overview of the 1938 to 1953 Additions to the East Façade (Left) of the 10349 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing South ..........................................3.0–45 Plate 3.3–20 North Façade of the Manufactured Home on the 10349 Oleander Avenue Property, Facing South ..................................................................................3.0–46 Plate 3.3–21 Overview of the Post-1985 Detached Garage on the 10349 Oleander Avenue Property, Facing Northeast ..............................................................3.0–47 Plate 3.3–22 West Façade of the 10367 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing East .............3.0–49 Plate 3.3–23 Northwest Corner of the 10367 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing Southeast .......................................................................................................3.0–50 Plate 3.3–24 North Façade of the 10375 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing South .........3.0–51 Plate 3.3–25 West Façade of the 10375 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing East .............3.0–52 Plate 3.3–26 West Façade of the 10475 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing East .............3.0–54 Plate 3.3–27 West Façade of the 10475 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing Northeast ....3.0–55 Plate 3.3–28 Northwest Corner of the 10475 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing Southeast .......................................................................................................3.0–56 Plate 3.3–29 South Façade of the 10475 Oleander Avenue Building, Facing North .........3.0–57 Plate 3.3–30 West Façade of the 16310 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing Northeast .........3.0–58 Plate 3.3–31 East Façade of the 16310 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing Northwest ..........3.0–59 Plate 3.3–32 South Façade of the 16310 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing North ..............3.0–60 Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ v List of Plates (continued) Plate Description Page Plate 3.3–33 West Façade of the 16310 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing Southeast .........3.0–61 Plate 3.3–34 West Façade of the 16321 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing Southeast .........3.0–62 Plate 3.3–35 North Façade of the 16321 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing Southwest .......3.0–63 Plate 3.3–36 1959 Aerial Photograph .................................................................................3.0–64 Plate 3.3–37 2008 View of the North Façade of the 16321 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing South ..................................................................................................3.0–65 Plate 3.3–38 2012 View of the North Façade of the 16321 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing South ..................................................................................................3.0–66 Plate 3.3–39 2007 View of the North Façade of the 16321 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing South ..................................................................................................3.0–67 Plate 3.3–40 North Façade of the 16321 Boyle Avenue Detached Garage, Facing Southwest ......................................................................................................3.0–69 Plate 3.3–41 2006 View of the West (Left) and South (Right) Façades of the 1930 Residence at 16326 Boyle Avenue, Facing Northeast ..................................3.0–70 Plate 3.3–42 2007 View of the South Façade of the 1930 Residence at 16326 Boyle Avenue, Facing North ...................................................................................3.0–71 Plate 3.3–43 West Façade (Left) of the 1930 Residence at 16326 Boyle Avenue, Facing Northeast .......................................................................................................3.0–72 Plate 3.3–44 West Façade of the 1930 Residence at 16326 Boyle Avenue, Facing Southeast .......................................................................................................3.0–73 Plate 3.3–45 West Façade of the 1962 to 1966 Residence at 16326 Boyle Avenue, Facing East ....................................................................................................3.0–74 Plate 3.3–46 Southeast Corner of the 1977 to 1985 Manufactured Home at 16326 Boyle Avenue, Facing Northwest ............................................................................3.0–75 Plate 3.3–47 2007 View of the South Façade of the 16398 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing North ..................................................................................................3.0–77 Plate 3.3–48 2012 View of the South Façade of the 16398 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing North ..................................................................................................3.0–78 Plate 3.3–49 2018 View of the South Façade of the 16398 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing North ..................................................................................................3.0–79 Plate 3.3–50 East Façade of the 16398 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing West ..................3.0–80 Plate 3.3–51 North Façade of the 16398 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing Southwest .......3.0–81 Plate 3.3–52 West Façade of the 16398 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing East ..................3.0–82 Plate 3.3–53 South Façade of the 16398 Boyle Avenue Building, Facing Northeast ........3.0–83 Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ vi List of Tables Table Description Page Table 1.3–1 Archaeological Sites Located Within One Mile of the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project ................................................................................................1.0–17 Table 3.3–1 Historic Properties Recorded Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project .............................................................................................................3.0–2 Table 3.3–2 1926 to 1932 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project .......3.0–10 Table 3.3–3 1934 to 1950 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project .......3.0–12 Table 3.3–4 1951 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project With Assigned APNs ...............................................................................................3.0–15 Table 3.3–5 1957 to 1961 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project .......3.0–16 Table 3.3–6 1962 to 1975 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project .......3.0–18 Table 3.3–7 2021 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project ....................3.0–20 Table 3.3–8 Sites Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project by Parcel .....................3.0–22 Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ vii MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT In response to a requirement by the City of Fontana, Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA) conducted a cultural resources survey of the 29.82-acre Slover and Cypress Avenue Project. This project is located south of Interstate 10, north of Slover Avenue, east of Oleander Avenue, and west of Cypress Avenue in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] APNs 251-163-01 to -10 and -13 and 251-164-03, -04, -10, - 11, -12, -14, -15, -16, -20, -23, and -25). On the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute, 1:24,000- scale Fontana, California topographic quadrangle map, the project is situated within Section 19, Township 1 South, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian. The proposed project consists of the construction of an industrial warehouse building with associated parking and infrastructure. The purpose of this investigation was to locate and record any cultural resources present within the project and subsequently evaluate any resources as part of the City of Fontana’s environmental review process conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The archaeological investigation of the project included the review of an archaeological records search from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton (CSU Fullerton) in order to assess previous archaeological studies and identify any previously recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries or in the immediate vicinity. BFSA also requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) review by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). A review of the records searches indicate that the property does not include any previously recorded archaeological sites, sacred sites, or Tribal Cultural Resources within the subject property. The archaeological survey, which was conducted on October 22, 2021, was completed in order to determine if cultural resources exist within the property and if the project represents a potential adverse impact to cultural resources. The survey resulted in the identification of eight historic resources: • Temp-1: Historic single-family residence (10349 Oleander Avenue; APN 251-163-05) • Temp-2: Historic single-family residence (10367 Oleander Avenue; APN 251-163-04) • Temp-3: Historic single-family residence (10375 Oleander Avenue; APN 251-163-03) • Temp-4: Historic single-family residence (10475 Oleander Avenue; APN 251-164-12) • Temp-5: Historic single-family residence (16310 Boyle Avenue; APN 251-163-02) • Temp-6: Historic single-family residence (16321 Boyle Avenue; APN 251-164-16) • Temp-7: Two historic single-family residences and one non-historic manufactured home (16326 Boyle Avenue; APN 251-163-01) • Temp-8: Historic single-family residence (16398 Boyle Avenue; APN 251-163-08) Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ viii According to the proposed development plan, the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project will impact all eight identified cultural resource sites. Based upon the results of the field survey and records searches, from the perspective of the CEQA review of the proposed development, sites Temp-1 to Temp-8 have been evaluated as not significant. While the buildings are historic in age, they were not designed by an architect of importance, they do not possess any architecturally important elements, and the owners were not historically significant to the community. Based upon the conclusions reached during the current evaluation, no mitigation measures are recommended for the nine historic buildings at Temp-1 to Temp-8. No impacts to significant resources are associated with the proposed development of the property. Although the historic buildings were evaluated as not CEQA-significant, the potential exists that unidentified significant historic deposits may be present that are related to the occupation of this location since the 1920s. Because of this potential to encounter buried cultural deposits, monitoring of grading by a qualified archaeologist is recommended. As no Native American prehistoric sites have been recorded within one mile of the property, Native American monitoring would not be required during grading unless and until a discovery of a prehistoric site or deposit occurs, at which time a Native American monitor should be incorporated into the monitoring program. Should potentially significant cultural deposits be discovered, mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce the effects of the grading impacts. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been provided in this report. As part of this study, a copy of this report will be submitted to the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description The archaeological survey program for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project was conducted in order to comply with CEQA and City of Fontana environmental guidelines. The project is located south of Interstate 10, north of Slover Avenue, east of Oleander Avenue, and west of Cypress Avenue in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1.1–1). The property, which includes APNs 251-163-01 to -10 and -13 and 251-164-03, -04, -10, -11, -12, -14, -15, -16, -20, -23, and -25, is located on the 7.5-minute USGS Fontana, California topographic quadrangle in Section 19, Township 1 South, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian (Figure 1.1–2). The project proposes to grade the entire 29.82-acre property for the construction of an industrial warehouse building with associated parking and infrastructure (Figure 1.1–3). The project includes 10349 Oleander Avenue, 10367 Oleander Avenue, 10375 Oleander Avenue, 10475 Oleander Avenue, 16310 Boyle Avenue, 16321 Boyle Avenue, 16326 Boyle Avenue, and 16398 Boyle Avenue, which are currently developed with single-family residences and associated hardscape and landscaping and have been recorded as Temp-1 to Temp-8 as part of the current study. The property was previously graded for the development of the parcels and ground visibility during the surveys was limited by the buildings, pavement, and construction. The decision to request this investigation was based upon the cultural resource sensitivity of the locality, as suggested by known site density and predictive modeling. Sensitivity for cultural resources in a given area is usually indicated by known settlement patterns, which in this particular case include the project’s proximity to Lytle Creek and the terrestrial ecosystems surrounding the creek, which are part of an environmental setting that supported a significant prehistoric population for over 10,000 years. 1.2 Environmental Setting The Slover and Cypress Avenue Project is generally located in southwestern San Bernardino County in the city of Fontana. The subject property is part of the Chino Basin, south of the San Gabriel Mountains, north of the Jurupa Mountains, and west of the San Bernardino Mountains. The San Gabriel Mountains extend east from Newhall Pass in Los Angeles County to the Cajon Pass in San Bernardino County. These mountains are part of the Transverse Ranges with peaks exceeding 9,000 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The project is located near the western margin and distal southern end of the broad Lytle Creek alluvial fan, which emanates from the San Gabriel Mountains approximately nine to 10 miles north as a result of uplift and dissection of the eastern mountains. The main source of these sediments is from the Lytle Creek drainage, near where the northwest-southeast-trending San Andreas fault zone cuts across and separates the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountain ranges (Morton and Miller 2006). Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–5 Elevations at the project range from 1,073 to 1,102 feet AMSL and soils in and around the project are mainly characterized as Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes, which consist of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in alluvium from granitic sources (NRCS 2019). No natural features that are often associated with prehistoric sites, such as bedrock outcrops or natural sources of water, are visible on aerial photographs or maps of the project area. Geomorphically, the project occupies the Fontana Plain (Dutcher and Garrett 1963) and is relatively flat-lying, with a gentle slope to the south. Geologically, the project is mapped as young alluvial fan deposits of Lytle Creek (Morton 2003) that are Holocene and late Pleistocene in age, a period of time spanning up to approximately 120,000 years ago (Cohen and Gibbard 2011). Morton (2003) describes these deposits as unconsolidated, cobbly, and bouldery alluvium composing the Lytle Creek alluvial fan. Dutcher and Garrett (1963) indicate that the young alluvial fan deposits may exceed one hundred feet thick in some areas of the Fontana-San Bernardino- Redlands region, but show that these deposits are approximately 15 feet thick for a broad area in the Fontana Plain, about one to two miles northeast of the project (Wirths 2022). During the prehistoric period, vegetation near the project provided sufficient food resources to support prehistoric human occupants. Animals that inhabited the project during prehistoric times included mammals such as rabbits, squirrels, gophers, mice, rats, deer, and coyotes, in addition to a variety of reptiles and amphibians. The natural setting of the project during the prehistoric occupation offered a rich nutritional resource base. Fresh water was likely obtainable from Chino Creek, Cucamonga Creek, and the Santa Ana River. Historically, the property likely contained the same plant and animal species that are present today. 1.3 Cultural Setting – Archaeological Perspectives The archaeological perspective seeks to reconstruct past cultures based upon the material remains left behind. This is done by using a range of scientific methodologies, almost all of which draw from evolutionary theory as the base framework. Archaeology allows one to look deeper into history or prehistory to see where the beginnings of ideas manifest via analysis of material culture, allowing for the understanding of outside forces that shape social change. Thus, the archaeological perspective allows one to better understand the consequences of the history of a given culture upon modern cultures. Archaeologists seek to understand the effects of past contexts of a given culture upon this moment in time, not culture in context in the moment. Despite this, a distinction exists between “emic” and “etic” ways of understanding material culture, prehistoric lifeways, and cultural phenomena in general (Harris 1991). While “emic” perspectives serve the subjective ways in which things are perceived and interpreted by the participants within a culture, “etic” perspectives are those of an outsider looking in hoping to attain a more scientific or “objective” understanding of the given phenomena. Archaeologists, by definition, will almost always serve an etic perspective as a result of the very nature of their work. As indicated by Laylander et al. (2014), it has sometimes been suggested that etic understanding, and therefore an archaeological understanding, is an imperfect and potentially ethnocentric attempt Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–6 to arrive at emic understanding. In contrast to this, however, an etic understanding of material culture, cultural phenomena, and prehistoric lifeways can address significant dimensions of culture that lie entirely beyond the understanding or interest of those solely utilizing an emic perspective. As Harris (1991:20) appropriately points out, “Etic studies often involve the measurement and juxtaposition of activities and events that native informants find inappropriate or meaningless.” This is also likely true of archaeological comparisons and juxtapositions of material culture. However, culture as a whole does not occur in a vacuum and is the result of several millennia of choices and consequences influencing everything from technology, to religions, to institutions. Archaeology allows for the ability to not only see what came before, but to see how those choices, changes, and consequences affect the present. Where possible, archaeology should seek to address both emic and etic understandings to the extent that they may be recoverable from the archaeological record as manifestations of patterned human behavior (Laylander et al. 2014). To that point, the culture history offered herein is primarily based upon archaeological (etic) and ethnographic (partially emic and partially etic) information. It is understood that the ethnographic record and early archaeological records were incompletely and imperfectly collected. In addition, in most cases, more than a century of intensive cultural change and cultural evolution had elapsed since the terminus of the prehistoric period. Coupled with the centuries and millennia of prehistoric change separating the “ethnographic present” from the prehistoric past, this has affected the emic and etic understandings of prehistoric cultural settings. Regardless, there remains a need to present the changing cultural setting within the region under investigation. As a result, both archaeological and Native American perspectives are offered when possible. 1.3.1 Introduction Paleo Indian, Archaic Period Milling Stone Horizon, and the Late Prehistoric Shoshonean groups are the three general cultural periods represented in San Bernardino County. The following discussion of the cultural history of San Bernardino County references the San Dieguito Complex, the Encinitas Tradition, the Milling Stone Horizon, the La Jolla Complex, the Pauma Complex, and the San Luis Rey Complex, since these culture sequences have been used to describe archaeological manifestations in the region. The Late Prehistoric component in the southwestern area of San Bernardino County was represented by the Gabrielino and Serrano Indians. According to Kroeber (1976), the Serrano probably owned a stretch of the Sierra Madre from Cucamonga east to above Mentone and halfway up to San Timoteo Canyon, including the San Bernardino Valley and just missing Riverside County. However, Kroeber (1976) also states that this area has been assigned to the Gabrielino, “which would be a more natural division of topography, since it would leave the Serrano pure mountaineers.” Absolute chronological information, where possible, will be incorporated into this discussion to examine the effectiveness of continuing to use these terms interchangeably. Reference will be made to the geologic framework that divides the culture chronology of the area into four segments: late Pleistocene (20,000 to 10,000 years before the present [YBP]), early Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–7 Holocene (10,000 to 6,650 YBP), middle Holocene (6,650 to 3,350 YBP), and late Holocene (3,350 to 200 YBP). Paleo Indian Period (Late Pleistocene: 11,500 to circa 9,000 YBP) The Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene (12,000 to 10,000 YBP). The environment during the late Pleistocene was cool and moist, which allowed for glaciation in the mountains and the formation of deep, pluvial lakes in the deserts and basin lands (Moratto 1984). However, by the terminus of the late Pleistocene, the climate became warmer, which caused glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise, greater coastal erosion, large lakes to recede and evaporate, extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and major vegetation changes (Moratto 1984; Martin 1967, 1973; Fagan 1991). The coastal shoreline at 10,000 YBP, depending upon the particular area of the coast, was near the 30-meter isobath, or two to six kilometers further west than its present location (Masters 1983). Paleo Indians were likely attracted to multiple habitat types, including mountains, marshlands, estuaries, and lakeshores. These people likely subsisted using a more generalized hunting, gathering, and collecting adaptation, utilizing a variety of resources including birds, mollusks, and both large and small mammals (Erlandson and Colten 1991; Moratto 1984; Moss and Erlandson 1995). Archaic Period (Early and Middle Holocene: circa 9,000 to 1,300 YBP) The Archaic Period of prehistory began with the onset of the Holocene around 9,000 YBP. The transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene was a period of major environmental change throughout North America (Antevs 1953; Van Devender and Spaulding 1979). The general warming trend caused sea levels to rise, lakes to evaporate, and drainage patterns to change. In southern California, the general climate at the beginning of the early Holocene was marked by cool/moist periods and an increase in warm/dry periods and sea levels. The coastal shoreline at 8,000 YBP, depending upon the particular area of the coast, was near the 20-meter isobath, or one to four kilometers further west than its present location (Masters 1983). The rising sea level during the early Holocene created rocky shorelines and bays along the coast by flooding valley floors and eroding the coastline (Curray 1965; Inman 1983). Shorelines were primarily rocky with small littoral cells, as sediments were deposited at bay edges but rarely discharged into the ocean (Reddy 2000). These bays eventually evolved into lagoons and estuaries, which provided a rich habitat for mollusks and fish. The warming trend and rising sea levels generally continued until the late Holocene (4,000 to 3,500 YBP). At the beginning of the late Holocene, sea levels stabilized, rocky shores declined, lagoons filled with sediment, and sandy beaches became established (Gallegos 1985; Inman 1983; Masters 1994; Miller 1966; Warren and Pavesic 1963). Many former lagoons became saltwater marshes surrounded by coastal sage scrub by the late Holocene (Gallegos 2002). The sedimentation of the lagoons was significant in that it had profound effects upon the types of resources available to Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–8 prehistoric peoples. Habitat was lost for certain large mollusks, namely Chione and Argopecten, but habitat was gained for other small mollusks, particularly Donax (Gallegos 1985; Reddy 2000). The changing lagoon habitats resulted in the decline of larger shellfish, the loss of drinking water, and the loss of Torrey Pine nuts, causing a major depopulation of the coast as people shifted inland to reliable freshwater sources and intensified their exploitation of terrestrial small game and plants, including acorns (originally proposed by Rogers 1929; Gallegos 2002). The Archaic Period in southern California is associated with a number of different cultures, complexes, traditions, horizons, and periods, including San Dieguito, La Jolla, Encinitas, Milling Stone, Pauma, and Intermediate. Late Prehistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1,300 YBP to 1790) Approximately 1,350 YBP, a Shoshonean-speaking group from the Great Basin region moved into San Bernardino County, marking the transition into the Late Prehistoric Period. This period has been characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political, and technological systems. Economic systems diversified and intensified during this period, with the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell-bead currency, and the appearance of more labor-intensive, yet effective, technological innovations. Technological developments during this period included the introduction of the bow and arrow between A.D. 400 and 600 and the introduction of ceramics. Atlatl darts were replaced by smaller arrow darts, including the Cottonwood series points. Other hallmarks of the Late Prehistoric Period include extensive trade networks as far reaching as the Colorado River Basin and cremation of the dead. Protohistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1790 to Present) Gabrielino The territory of the Gabrielino at the time of Spanish contact covers much of present-day Los Angeles and Orange counties. The southern extent of this culture area is bounded by Aliso Creek, the eastern extent is located east of present-day San Bernardino along the Santa Ana River, the northern extent includes the San Fernando Valley, and the western extent includes portions of the Santa Monica Mountains. The Gabrielino also occupied several Channel Islands including Santa Barbara Island, Santa Catalina Island, San Nicholas Island, and San Clemente Island. Because of their access to certain resources, including a steatite source from Santa Catalina Island, this group was among the wealthiest and most populous aboriginal groups in all of southern California. Trade of materials and resources controlled by the Gabrielino extended as far north as the San Joaquin Valley, as far east as the Colorado River, and as far south as Baja California (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). The Gabrielino lived in permanent villages and smaller resource gathering camps occupied at various times of the year depending upon the seasonality of the resource. Larger villages were comprised of several families or clans, while smaller seasonal camps typically housed smaller family units. The coastal area between San Pedro and Topanga Canyon was the location of Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–9 primary subsistence villages, while secondary sites were located near inland sage stands, oak groves, and pine forests. Permanent villages were located along rivers and streams, as well as in sheltered areas along the coast. As previously mentioned, the Channel Islands were also the locations of relatively large settlements (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). Resources procured along the coast and on the islands were primarily marine in nature and included tuna, swordfish, ray, shark, California sea lion, Stellar sea lion, harbor seal, northern elephant seal, sea otter, dolphin, porpoise, various waterfowl species, numerous fish species, purple sea urchin, and mollusks such as rock scallop, California mussel, and limpet. Inland resources included oak acorn, pine nut, Mohave yucca, cacti, sage, grass nut, deer, rabbit, hare, rodent, quail, duck, and a variety of reptiles such as western pond turtle and snakes (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). The social structure of the Gabrielino is little known; however, there appears to have been at least three social classes: 1) the elite, which included the rich, chiefs, and their immediate family; 2) a middle class, which included people of relatively high economic status or long-established lineages; and 3) a class of people that included most other individuals in the society. Villages were politically autonomous units comprised of several lineages. During times of the year when certain seasonal resources were available, the village would divide into lineage groups and move out to exploit them, returning to the village between forays (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). Each lineage had its own leader, with the village chief coming from the dominant lineage. Several villages might be allied under a paramount chief. Chiefly positions were of an ascribed status, most often passed to the eldest son. Chiefly duties included providing village cohesion, leading warfare and peace negotiations with other groups, collecting tribute from the village(s) under his jurisdiction, and arbitrating disputes within the village(s). The status of the chief was legitimized by his safekeeping of the sacred bundle, which was a representation of the link between the material and spiritual realms and the embodiment of power (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). Shamans were leaders in the spirit realm. The duties of the shaman included conducting healing and curing ceremonies, guarding the sacred bundle, locating lost items, identifying and collecting poisons for arrows, and making rain (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). Marriages were made between individuals of equal social status and, in the case of powerful lineages, marriages were arranged to establish political ties between the lineages (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). Men conducted the majority of the heavy labor, hunting, fishing, and trading with other groups. Women’s duties included gathering and preparing plant and animal resources, and making baskets, pots, and clothing (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). Gabrielino houses were domed, circular structures made of thatched vegetation. Houses varied in size and could house from one to several families. Sweathouses (semicircular, earth- covered buildings) were public structures used in male social ceremonies. Other structures included menstrual huts and a ceremonial structure called a yuvar, an open-air structure built near Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–10 the chief’s house (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). Clothing was minimal. Men and children most often went naked, while women wore deerskin or bark aprons. In cold weather, deerskin, rabbit fur, or bird skin (with feathers intact) cloaks were worn. Island and coastal groups used sea otter fur for cloaks. In areas of rough terrain, yucca fiber sandals were worn. Women often used red ochre on their faces and skin for adornment or protection from the sun. Adornment items included feathers, fur, shells, and beads (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). Hunting implements included wood clubs, sinew-backed bows, slings, and throwing clubs. Maritime implements included rafts, harpoons, spears, hook and line, and nets. A variety of other tools included deer scapulae saws, bone and shell needles, bone awls, scrapers, bone or shell flakers, wedges, stone knives and drills, metates, mullers, manos, shell spoons, bark platters, and wood paddles and bowls. Baskets were made from rush, deer grass, and skunkbush. Baskets were fashioned for hoppers, plates, trays, and winnowers for leaching, straining, and gathering. Baskets were also used for storing, preparing, and serving food, and for keeping personal and ceremonial items (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). The Gabrielino had exclusive access to soapstone, or steatite, procured from Santa Catalina Island quarries. This highly prized material was used for making pipes, animal carvings, ritual objects, ornaments, and cooking utensils. The Gabrielino greatly profited from trading steatite since it was valued so much by groups throughout southern California (Bean and Smith 1978a; Kroeber 1976). Serrano Aboriginally, the Serrano occupied an area east of present-day Los Angeles. According to Bean and Smith (1978b), definitive boundaries are difficult to place for the Serrano due to their sociopolitical organization and a lack of reliable data: The Serrano were organized into autonomous localized lineages occupying definite, favored territories, but rarely claiming any territory far removed from the lineage’s home base. Since the entire dialectical group was neither politically united nor amalgamated into supralineage groups, as many of their neighbors were, one must speak in terms of generalized areas of usage rather than pan-tribal holdings. (Strong [1929] in Bean and Smith 1978b) However, researchers place the Serrano in the San Bernardino Mountains east of Cajon Pass and at the base of and north of the mountains near Victorville, east to Twentynine Palms, and south to the Yucaipa Valley (Bean and Smith 1978b). Serrano has been used broadly for languages in the Takic family including Serrano, Kitanemuk, Vanyume, and Tataviam. The Serrano were part of “exogamous clans, which in turn were affiliated with one of two exogamous moieties, tukwutam (Wildcat) and wahiʔiam (Coyote)” (Bean and Smith 1978b). Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–11 According to Strong (1971), details such as number, structure, and function of the clans are unknown. Instead, he states that clans were not political, but were rather structured based upon “economic, marital, or ceremonial reciprocity, a pattern common throughout Southern California” (Bean and Smith 1978b). The Serrano formed alliances amongst their own clans and with Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, Gabrielino, and Cupeño clans (Bean and Smith 1978b). Clans were large, autonomous, political and landholding units formed patrilineally, with all males descending from a common male ancestor, including all wives and descendants of the males. However, even after marriage, women would still keep their original lineage, and would still participate in those ceremonies (Bean and Smith 1978b). According to Bean and Smith (1978b), the cosmogony and cosmography of the Serrano are very similar to those of the Cahuilla: There are twin creator gods, a creation myth told in “epic poem” style, each local group having its own origin story, water babies whose crying foretells death, supernatural beings of various kinds and on various hierarchically arranged power- access levels, an Orpheus-like myth, mythical deer that no one can kill, and tales relating the adventures (and misadventures) of Coyote, a tragicomic trickster- transformer culture hero. (Bean [1962-1972] and Benedict [1924] in Bean and Smith 1978b) The Serrano had a shaman, a person who acquired their powers through dreams, which were induced through ingestion of the hallucinogen datura. The shaman was mostly a curer/healer, using herbal remedies and “sucking out the disease-causing agents” (Bean and Smith 1978b). Serrano village locations were typically located near water sources. Individual family dwellings were likely circular, domed structures. Daily household activities would either take place outside of the house out in the open, or under a ramada constructed of a thatched willow pole roof held up by four or more poles inserted into the ground. Families could consist of a husband, wife/wives, unmarried female children, married male children, the husband’s parents, and/or widowed aunts and uncles. Rarely, an individual would occupy his own house, typically in the mountains. Serrano villages also included a large ceremonial house where the lineage leader would live, which served as the religious center for lineages or lineage-sets, granaries, and sweathouses (Bean and Smith 1978b). The Serrano were primarily hunters and gatherers. Vegetal staples varied with locality. Acorns and piñon nuts were found in the foothills, and mesquite, yucca roots, cacti fruits, and piñon nuts were found in or near the desert regions. Diets were supplemented with other roots, bulbs, shoots, and seeds (Heizer 1978). Deer, mountain sheep, antelopes, rabbits, and other small rodents were among the principal food packages. Various game birds, especially quail, were also hunted. The bow and arrow was used for large game, while smaller game and birds were killed with curved throwing sticks, traps, and snares. Occasionally, game was hunted communally, often Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–12 during mourning ceremonies (Benedict 1924; Drucker 1937; Heizer 1978). Earth ovens were used to cook meat, bones were boiled to extract marrow, and blood was either drunk cold or cooked to a thicker consistency and then eaten. Some meat and vegetables were sun-dried and stored. Food acquisition and processing required the manufacture of additional items such as knives, stone or bone scrapers, pottery trays and bowls, bone or horn spoons, and stirrers. Mortars, made of either stone or wood, and metates were also manufactured (Strong 1971; Drucker 1937; Benedict 1924). The Serrano were very similar technologically to the Cahuilla. In general, manufactured goods included baskets, some pottery, rabbit-skin blankets, awls, arrow straighteners, sinew- backed bows, arrows, fire drills, stone pipes, musical instruments (rattles, rasps, whistles, bull- roarers, and flutes), feathered costumes, mats for floor and wall coverings, bags, storage pouches, cordage (usually comprised of yucca fiber), and nets (Heizer 1978). Ethnohistoric Period (1769 to Present) Traditionally, the history of the state of California has been divided into three general periods: the Spanish Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican Period (1822 to 1846), and the American Period (1848 to present) (Caughey 1970). The American Period is often further subdivided into additional phases: the nineteenth century (1848 to 1900), the early twentieth century (1900 to 1950), and the Modern Period (1950 to present). From an archaeological standpoint, all of these phases can be referred to together as the Ethnohistoric Period. This provides a valuable tool for archaeologists, as ethnohistory is directly concerned with the study of indigenous or non-Western peoples from a combined historical/anthropological viewpoint, which employs written documents, oral narrative, material culture, and ethnographic data for analysis. European exploration along the California coast began in 1542 with the landing of Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo and his men at San Diego Bay. Sixty years after the Cabrillo expeditions, an expedition under Sebastian Viscaíno made an extensive and thorough exploration of the Pacific coast. Although the voyage did not extend beyond the northern limits of the Cabrillo track, Viscaíno had the most lasting effect upon the nomenclature of the coast. Many of his place names have survived, whereas practically every one of the names created by Cabrillo have faded from use. For instance, Cabrillo named the first (now) United States port he stopped at “San Miguel”; 60 years later, Viscaíno changed it to “San Diego” (Rolle 1969). The early European voyages observed Native Americans living in villages along the coast but did not make any substantial, long-lasting impact. At the time of contact, the Luiseño population was estimated to have ranged from 4,000 to as many as 10,000 individuals (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). The historic background of the project area began with the Spanish colonization of Alta California. The first Spanish colonizing expedition reached southern California in 1769 with the intention of converting and civilizing the indigenous populations, as well as expanding the knowledge of and access to new resources in the region (Brigandi 1998). As a result, by the late eighteenth century, a large portion of southern California was overseen by Mission San Luis Rey (San Diego County), Mission San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and Mission San Gabriel Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–13 (Los Angeles County), who began colonizing the region and surrounding areas (Chapman 1921). Up until this time, the only known way to feasibly travel from Sonora to Alta California was by sea. In 1774, Juan Bautista de Anza, an army captain at Tubac, requested and was given permission by the governor of the Mexican State of Sonora to establish an overland route from Sonora to Monterey (Chapman 1921). In doing so, Juan Bautista de Anza passed through Riverside County and described the area in writing for the first time (Caughey 1970; Chapman 1921). In 1797, Father Presidente Lausen (of Mission San Diego de Alcalá), Father Norberto de Santiago, and Corporal Pedro Lisalde (of Mission San Juan Capistrano) led an expedition through southwestern Riverside County in search of a new mission site to establish a presence between San Diego and San Juan Capistrano (Engelhardt 1921). Their efforts ultimately resulted in the establishment of Mission San Luis Rey in Oceanside, California. Each mission gained power through the support of a large, subjugated Native American workforce. As the missions grew, livestock holdings increased and became increasingly vulnerable to theft. In order to protect their interests, the southern California missions began to expand inland to try and provide additional security (Beattie and Beattie 1939; Caughey 1970). In order to meet their needs, the Spaniards embarked upon a formal expedition in 1806 to find potential locations within what is now the San Bernardino Valley. As a result, by 1810, Father Francisco Dumetz of Mission San Gabriel had succeeded in establishing a religious site, or capilla, at a Cahuilla rancheria called Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). San Bernardino Valley received its name from this site, which was dedicated to San Bernardino de Siena by Father Dumetz. The Guachama rancheria was located in present-day Bryn Mawr in San Bernardino County. These early colonization efforts were followed by the establishment of estancias at Puente (circa 1816) and San Bernardino (circa 1819) near Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). These efforts were soon mirrored by the Spaniards from Mission San Luis Rey, who in turn established a presence in what is now Lake Elsinore, Temecula, and Murrieta (Chapman 1921). The indigenous groups who occupied these lands were recruited by missionaries, converted, and put to work in the missions (Pourade 1961). Throughout this period, the Native American populations were decimated by introduced diseases, a drastic shift in diet resulting in poor nutrition, and social conflicts due to the introduction of an entirely new social order (Cook 1976). Mexico achieved independence from Spain in 1822 and became a federal republic in 1824. As a result, both Baja and Alta California became classified as territories (Rolle 1969). Shortly thereafter, the Mexican Republic sought to grant large tracts of private land to its citizens to begin to encourage immigration to California and to establish its presence in the region. Part of the establishment of power and control included the desecularization of the missions circa 1832. These same missions were also located on some of the most fertile land in California and, as a result, were considered highly valuable. The resulting land grants, known as “ranchos,” covered expansive portions of California and by 1846, more than 600 land grants had been issued by the Mexican government. Rancho Jurupa was the first rancho to be established and was issued to Juan Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–14 Bandini in 1838. Although Bandini primarily resided in San Diego, Rancho Jurupa was located in what is now Riverside County (Pourade 1963). A review of Riverside County place names quickly illustrates that many of the ranchos in Riverside County lent their names to present-day locations, including Jurupa, El Rincon, La Sierra, El Sobrante de San Jacinto, La Laguna (Lake Elsinore), Santa Rosa, Temecula, Pauba, San Jacinto Nuevo y Potrero, and San Jacinto Viejo (Gunther 1984). As was typical of many ranchos, these were all located in the valley environments within western Riverside County. The treatment of Native Americans grew worse during the Rancho Period. Most of the Native Americans were forced off of their land or put to work on the now privately-owned ranchos, most often as slave labor. In light of the brutal ranchos, the degree to which Native Americans had become dependent upon the mission system is evident when, in 1838, a group of Native Americans from Mission San Luis Rey petitioned government officials in San Diego to relieve suffering at the hands of the rancheros: We have suffered incalculable losses, for some of which we are in part to be blamed for because many of us have abandoned the Mission … We plead and beseech you … to grant us a Rev. Father for this place. We have been accustomed to the Rev. Fathers and to their manner of managing the duties. We labored under their intelligent directions, and we were obedient to the Fathers according to the regulations, because we considered it as good for us. (Brigandi 1998:21) Native American culture had been disrupted to the point where they could no longer rely upon prehistoric subsistence and social patterns. Not only does this illustrate how dependent the Native Americans had become upon the missionaries, but it also indicates a marked contrast in the way the Spanish treated the Native Americans compared to the Mexican and United States ranchers. Spanish colonialism (missions) is based upon utilizing human resources while integrating them into their society. The Mexican and American ranchers did not accept Native Americans into their social order and used them specifically for the extraction of labor, resources, and profit. Rather than being incorporated, they were either subjugated or exterminated (Cook 1976). By 1846, tensions between the United States and Mexico had escalated to the point of war (Rolle 1969). In order to reach a peaceful agreement, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was put into effect in 1848, which resulted in the annexation of California to the United States. Once California opened to the United States, waves of settlers moved in searching for gold mines, business opportunities, political opportunities, religious freedom, and adventure (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). By 1850, California had become a state and was eventually divided into 27 separate counties. While a much larger population was now settling in California, this was primarily in the central valley, San Francisco, and the Gold Rush region of the Sierra Nevada mountain range (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). During this time, southern California grew at a much Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–15 slower pace than northern California and was still dominated by the cattle industry that was established during the earlier rancho period. However, by 1859, the first United States Post Office in what would eventually become Riverside County was set up at John Magee’s store on the Temecula Rancho (Gunther 1984). During the same decade, circa 1852, the Native Americans of southern Riverside County, including the Luiseño and the Cahuilla, thought they had signed a treaty resulting in their ownership of all lands from Temecula to Aguanga east to the desert, including the San Jacinto Valley and the San Gorgonio Pass. The Temecula Treaty also included food and clothing provisions for the Native Americans. However, Congress never ratified these treaties, and the promise of one large reservation was rescinded (Brigandi 1998). With the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1869, southern California saw its first major population expansion. The population boom continued circa 1874 with the completion of connections between the Southern Pacific Railroad in Sacramento to the transcontinental Central Pacific Railroad in Los Angeles (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). The population influx brought farmers, land speculators, and prospective developers to the region. As the Jurupa area became more and more populated, circa 1870, Judge John Wesley North and a group of associates founded the city of Riverside on part of the former rancho. Although the first orange trees were planted in Riverside County circa 1871, it was not until a few years later when a small number of Brazilian navel orange trees were established that the citrus industry truly began in the region (Patterson 1971). The Brazilian navel orange was well suited to the climate of Riverside County and thrived with assistance from several extensive irrigation projects. At the close of 1882, an estimated half a million citrus trees were present in California. It is estimated that nearly half of that population was in Riverside County. Population growth and 1880s tax revenue from the booming citrus industry prompted the official formation of Riverside County in 1893 out of portions of what was once San Bernardino County (Patterson 1971). Shortly thereafter, with the start of World War I, the United States began to develop a military presence in Riverside County with the construction of March Air Reserve Base. During World War II, Camp Haan and Camp Anza were constructed in what is now the current location of the National Veteran’s Cemetery. In the decades that followed, populations spread throughout the county into Lake Elsinore, Corona, Norco, Murrieta, and Wildomar. However, a significant portion of the county remained largely agricultural well into the 1970s. Following the 1970s, Riverside saw a period of dramatic population increase as the result of new development, more than doubling the population of the county with a population of over 1.3 million residents (Patterson 1971). General History of the City of Fontana In 1869, Andrew Jackson Pope, cofounder of the Pope & Talbot Company, a lumber dealer based out of San Francisco (Ancestry.com 2009a, 2009b; University of Washington Libraries, Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–16 Special Collections 2018), purchased 3,840 acres of land in San Bernardino County as part of the Land Act of 1820. “During the ensuing years, Andrew Pope and W.C. Talbot acquired other properties in the West, chiefly in California. By 1874, they owned a real estate empire, including almost 80,000 acres of ranch lands” (World Forestry Center 2017). Pope passed away in 1878 amid water rights conflicts between grant owners (himself) and settlers surrounding his Fontana-area lands. As a result of the water rights conflict, in which the United States Supreme Court sided with the grant owners, the Lytle Creek Water Company was formed in 1881. The purpose of the Lytle Creek Water Company was to: [U]nify the interests of appropriators to the stream, to fight the grant owners. These latter had the law on their side, but the settlers had the water, and were holding and using it. An injunction was issued in favor of the grant owners, restraining the settlers from using the water, but it was never enforced. The conflict was a long and bitter one. In the meantime, the grant owners, and others operating with them, quietly bought up the stock of the Lytle Creek Water Company, until enough to control it was secured, and sold out these rights to the projectors of the Semi-tropic Land and Water Company, with the riparian lands, which movement seems to have quieted the conflict. (Hall 1888) The Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company was incorporated in 1887. That year, the company platted the settlement of Rosena, but no structures were erected. By 1888, the company had acquired “something more than twenty-eight thousand five hundred acres of land, embracing the channel of Lytle creek for ten miles” (Hall 1888). In 1903, San Bernardino contractor and agriculturist A.B. Miller and “his pioneer Fontana Development Company purchased Rosena and by 1905, had begun the building of a farming complex that included an assortment of barns, dining rooms, a 200-man bunk house, a kitchen, a company store, as well as the ranch house used by the foreman” (Anicic 1982). By 1906, Miller had also taken over the remainder of the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company assets and created the Fontana Farms Company and the Fontana Land Company. Afterward, Miller oversaw the construction of an irrigation system that utilized the water from Lytle Creek, as well as the planting of “half a million eucalyptus saplings as windbreaks” (Conford 1995). In 1913, the town of Fontana was platted between Foothill Boulevard and the Santa Fe railroad tracks. Much of the land to the south of the townsite was utilized as a hog farm, while the remainder of the Fontana Farms Company land was subdivided into small farms. The smaller “starter farms” were approximately 2.5 acres and the new owner was able to choose between grapevines or walnut trees, all supplied by the Fontana Farms nursery. “By 1930 the Fontana Company had subdivided more than three thousand homesteads, half occupied by full-time settlers, some of them immigrants from Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Italy” (Conford 1995). Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–17 Kaiser Steel was founded in Fontana in the 1940s and became one of the main producers of steel west of the Mississippi River. To provide for his workers’ health needs, Henry J. Kaiser constructed the Fontana Kaiser Permanente medical facility, which is now the largest managed care organization in the United States. The city of Fontana was incorporated on June 25, 1952. The steel operation was closed in the 1980s; however, the city has since become a transportation hub for trucking due to the number of highways that intersect in the area (Anicic 2005; City of Fontana 2018). 1.3.2 Results of the Archaeological Records Search The SCCIC records search results indicate that 40 resources have been recorded within one mile of the project, none of which are located within the subject property (Table 1.3–1). All 40 resources are historic and include the Southern Pacific Railroad alignment, farm/ranch complexes, single-family residences, commercial buildings, and the Kaiser Fontana Medical Center Campus. Table 1.3–1 Archaeological Sites Recorded Within a One-Mile Radius of the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project Site(s) Description SBR-10,330H Historic Southern Pacific Railroad alignment SBR-11,567H, P-36-013857, and P-36-026971 Historic farm/ranch complex SBR-29,056H Historic Gertrude Smith residential building complex P-36-013852, P-36-013856, P-36-013858, P-36-013859, P-36-013860, P-36-013861, P-36-013862, P-36-013863, P-36-013864, P-36-026954, P-36-026955, P-36-026956, P-36-026957, P-36-026958, P-36-026959, P-36-026964, P-36-026965, P-36-026966, P-36-026967, P-36-026968, P-36-026969, P-36-026970, P-36-027105, P-36-027106, P-36-027107, P-36-027108, P-36-027109, P-36-027110, P-36-027111, and P-36-033192 Historic single-family residence(s) P-36-013853 Historic single-family residence and commercial building P-36-013854, P-36-013855, and P-36-013865 Historic commercial building P-36-014467 Historic Kaiser Fontana Medical Center Campus Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–18 The results of the records search data also indicate that 28 cultural resource studies have been conducted within a one-mile radius of the subject property, none of which include any portions of the project. The full records search results are provided in Appendix C. The following historic sources were also reviewed: • The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Index • The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility • The OHP, Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) • Bureau of Land Management (BLM) General Land Office (GLO) records • The USGS 1896, 1898, 1901, and 1954 15' San Bernardino and 1943, 1953, 1955, 1967, and 1969 7.5' Fontana topographic quadrangles • Historic aerial photographs dating between 1933 and 2019 Although no resources have been formally recorded with the SCCIC within the subject property, the BERD does list one historic address (16395 Boyle Avenue) within the subject property. The address corresponds to a residence once located in the center of the project. The historic property is listed on the BERD with a construction date of 1953 and was evaluated as ineligible for the NRHP by consensus through the Section 106 process, but was not evaluated for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or local listing (6Y). However, based upon the results of the current survey, this address and any associated structures have been demolished and are no longer located within the subject property. The BLM GLO records indicate that Section 19, Township 1 South, Range 5 West was granted to Andrew Pope on May 10, 1870 (BLM Serial Number CACAAA 084020). The historic aerial photographs extending from 1933 to 2019 indicate that the subject property was originally utilized for agriculture. Early historic USGS maps do not show any structures within the subject property until the 1953 Fontana 7.5' topographic map. All subsequent maps show structures within the project. BFSA also requested a SLF search from the NAHC. The search failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources on or near the project. All correspondence is provided in Appendix D. The records search and literature review suggest that there is a low potential for prehistoric sites to be contained within the boundaries of the property due to the extensive nature of past ground disturbances and the lack of natural resources often associated with prehistoric sites. No prehistoric sites have been recorded within one mile of the project and these resources tend to be situated farther south, closer to the bedrock-laden Jurupa Mountains. The records search and literature review suggest that historic buildings and sites associated with the agricultural history of the region are the most likely cultural resources to be encountered within the project. Based upon the previously recorded surrounding resources and the historic aerial photographs, there is a Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–19 potential for historic resources to be located within the subject property. 1.4 Applicable Regulations Resource importance is assigned to districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess exceptional value or quality illustrating or interpreting the heritage of San Bernardino County in history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. A number of criteria are used in demonstrating resource importance. Specifically, the criteria outlined in CEQA provide the guidance for making such a determination, as provided below. 1.4.1 California Environmental Quality Act According to CEQA (§15064.5a), the term “historical resource” includes the following: 1) A resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the CRHR (Public Resources Code [PRC] SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR. Section 4850 et seq.). 2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. 3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript, which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC SS5024.1, Title 14, Section 4852) including the following: a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–20 4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1[k] of the PRC), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1[g] of the PRC) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. According to CEQA (§15064.5b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect upon the environment. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as: 1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired. 2) The significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project: a) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR; or b) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or, c) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA. Section 15064.5(c) of CEQA applies to effects upon archaeological sites and contains the following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites: 1. When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is a historical resource, as defined in subsection (a). 2. If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is a historical resource, it shall refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the PRC, Section 15126.4 of the guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the PRC do not apply. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–21 3. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), but does meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the PRC, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. The time and cost limitations described in PRC Section 21083.2(c-f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains unique archaeological resources. 4. If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor historical resource, the effects of the project upon those resources shall not be considered a significant effect upon the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect upon it are noted in the Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report, if one is prepared to address impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process. Section 15064.5(d) and (e) contain additional provisions regarding human remains. Regarding Native American human remains, paragraph (d) provides: (d) When an Initial Study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC, as provided in PRC SS5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC. Action implementing such an agreement is exempt from: 1) The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5). 2) The requirements of CEQA and the Coastal Act. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.0–1 2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN The primary goal of the research design is to attempt to understand the way in which humans have used the land and resources within the project area through time, as well as to aid in the determination of resource significance. For the current project, the study area under investigation is in the city of Fontana in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County. The scope of work for the cultural resources study conducted for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project included the survey of a 29.82-acre area and the assessment of nine historic structures. Given the area involved, the research design for this project was focused upon realistic study options. Since the main objective of the investigation was to identify the presence of and potential impacts to cultural resources, the goal is not necessarily to answer wide-reaching theories regarding the development of early southern California, but to investigate the role and importance of the identified resources. Nevertheless, the assessment of the significance of a resource must take into consideration a variety of characteristics, as well as the ability of the resource to address regional research topics and issues. Although survey programs are limited in terms of the amount of information available, several specific research questions were developed that could be used to guide the initial investigations of any observed cultural resources: • Can located cultural resources be associated with a specific time period, population, or individual? • Do the types of located cultural resources allow a site activity/function to be determined from a preliminary investigation? What are the site activities? What is the site function? What resources were exploited? • How do the located sites compare to others reported from different surveys conducted in the area? • How do the located sites fit existing models of settlement and subsistence for the region? For the historic structures located within the project, the potential for historic deposits is considered remote, and therefore, the research process was focused upon the built environment and those individuals associated with the ownership, design, and construction of the buildings within the project footprint. Although historic structure evaluations are limited in terms of the amount of information available, several specific research questions were developed that could be used to guide the initial investigations of any observed historic resources: • Can the building be associated with any significant individuals or events? • Is the building representative of a specific type, style, or method of construction? • Is the building associated with any nearby structures? Does the building, when studied Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.0–2 with the nearby structures, qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district? • Was the building designed or constructed by a significant architect, designer, builder, or contractor? Data Needs At the survey level, the principal research objective is a generalized investigation of changing settlement patterns in both the prehistoric and historic periods within the study area. The overall goal is to understand settlement and resource procurement patterns of the project area occupants. Further, the overall goal of the historic structure assessment is to understand the construction and use of the buildings within their associated historic context. Therefore, adequate information on site function, context, and chronology from both an archaeological and historic perspective is essential for the investigation. The fieldwork and archival research were undertaken with the following primary research goals in mind: 1) To identify cultural and historic resources occurring within the project; 2) To determine, if possible, site type and function, context of the deposit, and chronological placement of each cultural resource identified, and the type, style, and method of construction for any buildings; 3) To place each cultural resource identified within a regional perspective; 4) To identify persons or events associated with any buildings and their construction; and 5) To provide recommendations for the treatment of each cultural and historic resource identified. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–1 3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS The cultural resources study of the project consisted of an institutional records search, an intensive cultural resource survey of the entire 29.82-acre project, and the detailed recordation of all identified cultural resources. This study was conducted in conformance with City of Fontana environmental guidelines, Section 21083.2 of the California PRC, and CEQA. Statutory requirements of CEQA (Section 15064.5) were followed for the identification and evaluation of resources. Specific definitions for archaeological resource type(s) used in this report are those established by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO 1995). 3.1 Methods 3.1.1 Archival Research Records relating to the ownership and developmental history of this project were sought to identify any associated historic persons, historic events, or architectural significance. Records research was conducted at the BFSA research library, the SCCIC, the Fontana Historical Society, the Fontana Public Library, and the offices of the San Bernardino Assessor/County Recorder/County Clerk. Sanborn Fire Insurance maps were searched for at the San Diego Public Library. Ownership information and Lot Book pages also obtained. Appendix E contains maps of the property, including historic USGS maps from 1896, 1943, 1955, and 1969, the 1891 subdivision map, the 1929 to 1934 and 1948 to 1951 Lot Book maps, and the 1962 to 1968 and 1976 to 1981 updates to the 1951 Assessor’s parcel map. No Sanborn maps are available as the property is outside the Fontana coverage areas. 3.1.2 Survey Methods The survey methodology employed during the current investigation followed standard archaeological field procedures and was sufficient to accomplish a thorough assessment of the project. The field methodology employed for the project included walking evenly spaced survey transects set approximately 10 meters apart while visually inspecting the ground surface, including all potentially sensitive areas where cultural resources might be located. Photographs documenting survey discoveries and overall survey conditions were taken frequently. All cultural resources were recorded as necessary according to the OHP’s manual, Instructions for Recording Historical Resources, using Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms. 3.1.3 Historic Structure Assessment Methods for evaluating the integrity and significance of the historic buildings within APNs 251-163-01 to -10 and -13 and 251-164-03, -04, -10, -11, -12, -14, -15, -16, -20, -23, and -25 included photographic documentation and review of available archival documents. During the survey, photographs were taken of all building elevations. The photographs were used to complete architectural descriptions of the buildings. The original core structures and all modifications made Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–2 to the buildings since their initial construction were also recorded. The current setting of the buildings was compared to the historical setting of the property. This information was combined with the archival research in order to evaluate the buildings’ seven aspects of integrity, as well as their potential significance under CEQA guidelines. 3.2 Results of the Field Survey BFSA field archaeologist David Grabski conducted the intensive pedestrian survey on October 22, 2021 under the direction of Principal Investigator Brian Smith. Ground visibility was limited due to rubble from demolition of previous structures and current residential and industrial development (Plates 3.2–1 to 3.2–4). The entire property appears to have been previously rough- graded. As a result of the field survey, nine historic buildings have been identified within the project. The buildings have been recorded as Temp-1 to Temp-8 with the SCCIC (Figure 3.2–1) and were subsequently evaluated for significance as part of this study. No other cultural resources were observed during the survey of the project. 3.3 Historic Structure Analysis Within the boundaries of the subject property, 10 historic buildings have been identified (Table 3.3–1 and Figure 3.3–1). DPR site forms were submitted to the SCCIC on January 27, 2022. Once processed, the SCCIC will assign the new resources permanent site numbers. The following section provides the pertinent field results for the significance evaluation for the historic buildings located within the project boundaries, which was conducted in accordance with City of Fontana guidelines and site evaluation protocols. Table 3.3–1 Historic Properties Recorded Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project APN Address Building Type Site Number Date Constructed 251-163-05 10349 Oleander Avenue Single-family residence Temp-1 1923 251-163-04 10367 Oleander Avenue Temp-2 1946 251-163-03 10375 Oleander Avenue Temp-3 1950 251-164-12 10475 Oleander Avenue Temp-4 1966 251-163-02 16310 Boyle Avenue Temp-5 1945 251-164-16 16321 Boyle Avenue Temp-6 1926 251-163-01 16326 Boyle Avenue Single-family residence Temp-7 1930 1962 to 1966 Manufactured home 1977 to 1985 251-163-08 16398 Boyle Avenue Single-family residence Temp-8 1930 Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–7 Site Temp-1 (10349 Oleander Avenue) is a single-family residence constructed by an unknown builder in 1923. It currently exhibits characteristics of the Craftsman architectural style but was originally designed in an unknown style. Site Temp-2 (10367 Oleander Avenue) is a Contemporary-style, single-family residence constructed by an unknown builder in 1946. Site Temp-3 (10375 Oleander Avenue) is a Minimal Traditional-style, single-family residence constructed by an unknown builder in 1950. Site Temp-4 (10475 Oleander Avenue) is a Ranch- style, single-residence constructed by an unknown builder in 1966. Site Temp-5 (16310 Boyle Avenue) is a single-family residence likely constructed in the Transitional Ranch style by an unknown builder in 1945. Site Temp-6 (16321 Boyle Avenue) is a single-family residence likely constructed in the Craftsman style by an unknown builder in 1926. Site Temp-7 consists of three buildings located at 16326 Boyle Avenue that were built between 1930 and 1985. The manufactured home was built between 1977 and 1985 and is not historic. The two historic single- family residences were constructed in an unknown style in 1930 and in a simple Ranch style between 1962 and 1966, both by unknown builders. Site Temp-8 (16398 Boyle Avenue) is a single-family residence constructed in 1930 in an unknown style by an unknown builder. Descriptions and significance evaluations of the historic resources are provided below. 3.3.1 History of the Project Area The first recorded owner of the properties located within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project was Andrew Jackson Pope (Plate 3.3–1), cofounder of the Pope & Talbot Company, a lumber dealer based out of San Francisco (Ancestry.com 2009a, 2009b; University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections 2018). In 1869, as part of the Land Act of 1820, Pope purchased 12,179 acres of land in San Bernardino County, including 8,339 acres within Sections 4 to 9, 15, 17, 18, 19 (the current project area), 22, 29, and 30 of Township 1 South, Ranch 6 West, and 3,840 acres within Sections 22 to 27 of Township 1 South, Range 6 West. “During the ensuing years, Andrew Pope and W.C. Talbot acquired other properties in the West, chiefly in California. By 1874, they owned a real estate empire, including almost 80,000 acres of ranch lands” (World Forestry Center 2017). Pope passed away in 1878 amid water rights conflicts between grant owners (himself) and settlers surrounding his Fontana-area lands. As a result of the Plate 3.3–1: Andrew Jackson Pope. (Photograph courtesy of the World Forestry Center 2017) Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–8 water rights conflict, in which the United States Supreme Court sided with the grant owners, the Lytle Creek Water Company was formed in 1881. The purpose of the Lytle Creek Water Company was to: [U]nify the interests of appropriators to the stream, to fight the grant owners. These latter had the law on their side, but the settlers had the water, and were holding and using it. An injunction was issued in favor of the grant owners, restraining the settlers from using the water, but it was never enforced. The conflict was a long and bitter one. In the meantime, the grant owners, and others operating with them, quietly bought up the stock of the Lytle Creek Water Company, until enough to control it was secured, and sold out these rights to the projectors of the Semi-tropic Land and Water Company, with the riparian lands, which movement seems to have quieted the conflict. (Hall 1888) The Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company was incorporated in 1887. That year, the company platted the settlement of Rosena, but no structures were erected. By 1888, the company had acquired “something more than twenty-eight thousand five hundred acres of land, embracing the channel of Lytle creek for ten miles” (Hall 1888). The subject property was first shown on the 1891 Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company Subdivision Map as lots 739 and 742 (Figure 3.3– 2). In 1903, San Bernardino contractor and agriculturist A.B. Miller and “his pioneer Fontana Development Company purchased Rosena and by 1905, had begun the building of a farming complex that included an assortment of barns, dining rooms, a 200-man bunk house, a kitchen, a company store, as well as the ranch house used by the foreman” (Anicic 1982). By 1906, Miller had also taken over the remainder of the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company assets and created the Fontana Farms Company and the Fontana Land Company. Afterward, Miller oversaw the construction of an irrigation system that utilized the water from Lytle Creek, as well as the planting of “half a million eucalyptus saplings as windbreaks” (Conford 1995). In 1913, the town of Fontana was platted between Foothill Boulevard and the Santa Fe railroad tracks. Much of the land to the south of the townsite was utilized as a hog farm, while the remainder of the Fontana Farms Company land was subdivided into small farms. The smaller “starter farms” were approximately 2.5 acres and the new owner was able to choose between grapevines or walnut trees, all supplied by the Fontana Farms nursery. “By 1930 the Fontana Company had subdivided more than three thousand homesteads, half occupied by full-time settlers, some of them immigrants from Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Italy” (Conford 1995). Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–10 San Bernardino County Lot Books indicate that the Fontana Land Company owned lots 739 and 742, which include the entire project (Figure 3.3–3), from 1917 to 1921. Both lots were transferred to Fontana Farms in 1922. They were then assessed to Pacific Southwest Trust and Savings Bank briefly in 1924, before the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company took ownership in 1925. In 1926, Lot 739 was split into two parcels and Lot 742 was split into five separate parcels, four of which include the current project. In 1932, the original Lot 739 was split further, making five total parcels. Table 3.3–2 details the lot splits that are associated with Figure 3.3–3. Table 3.3–2 1926 to 1932 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project Year Original Lot Number Description 1926 739 West 2.26 acres East 62.48 acres 742 East 1/2 North 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the west 1/2 South 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the west 1/2 North 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the west 1/2 South 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the west 1/2† 1932 739 West 2.26 acres* West 6.99 acres of the east 13.46 acres West 1.99 acres of the east 6.47 acres West 2.0 acres of the east 4.48 acres East 2.28 acres 742 No change* *No change from the previous lot split †Parcel is located outside of the project In 1934, the “west 6.99 acres of the east 13.46 acres” of Lot 739 were split into three separate lots. In 1942, the “west 2.26 acres” of Lot 739 were bisected from east to west, and in 1945, the southern portion (the “west 2.26 acres excluding the north 235 feet”) was split in half from north to south. Another change to the southwest portion of Lot 739 occurred in 1947, when the “east 90 feet of the west 2.26 acres excluding the north 241 feet” were bisected from east to west, creating two additional parcels. Between 1926 and 1947, no changes were made to Lot 742. In 1947 the “east 1/2” was split into four parcels and in 1950, the “north 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the east 1/2” was split into two more parcels. By 1950, Lot 739 contained 10 separate parcels and Lot 742 contained nine parcels. Table 3.3–3 details the lot splits that are associated with Figure 3.3– 4. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–12 Table 3.3–3 1934 to 1950 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project Year Original Lot Number Description 1934 739 West 2.26 acres* West 2.41 acres of the east 13.46 acres West 2.28 acres of the east 11.05 acres West 2.8 acres of the east 8.77 acres West 1.99 acres of the east 6.47 acres* West 2.0 acres of the east 4.48 acres* East 2.28 acres* 742 No change* 1942 739 North 235 feet of the west 2.26 acres West 2.26 acres excluding the north 235 feet West 2.41 acres of the east 13.46 acres* West 2.28 acres of the east 11.05 acres* West 2.8 acres of the east 8.77 acres* West 1.99 acres of the east 6.47 acres* West 2.0 acres of the east 4.48 acres* East 2.28 acres* 742 No change* 1945 739 North 241 feet of the west 2.26 acres (six feet added to the length of the parcel) East 90 feet of the west 2.26 acres excluding the north 241 feet West 2.26 acres, excluding the north 241 feet, excluding the east 90 feet West 2.41 acres of the east 13.46 acres* West 2.28 acres of the east 11.05 acres* West 2.8 acres of the east 8.77 acres* West 1.99 acres of the east 6.47 acres* West 2.0 acres of the east 4.48 acres* East 2.28 acres* 742 No change* 1947 739 North 241 feet of the west 2.26 acres* Corner located 147 feet north from Oleander and Boyle avenues, on the east side of Oleander Avenue, then 80 feet north, of the west 2.26 acres, excluding the north 241 feet, excluding the east 90 feet Northeast corner of Oleander and Boyle avenues, then 147 feet north, of the west 2.26 acres, excluding the north 241 feet, excluding the east 90 feet East 90 feet of the west 2.26 acres excluding the north 241 feet* West 2.41 acres of the east 13.46 acres* Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–13 Year Original Lot Number Description West 2.28 acres of the east 11.05 acres* West 2.8 acres of the east 8.77 acres* West 1.99 acres of the east 6.47 acres* West 2.0 acres of the east 4.48 acres* East 2.28 acres* 742 East 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the north 1/2 North 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the east 1/2 South 1/2 of the east 1/2, excluding the easterly 3.5 acres Easterly 3.5 acres North 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the west 1/2* South 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the west 1/2* North 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the west 1/2* South 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the west 1/2† 1950 739 No change* 742 East 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the north 1/2* North 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the east 1/2, excluding the westerly 120 feet The westerly 120 feet of the north 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the east 1/2 South 1/2 of the east 1/2 excluding the easterly 3.5 acres* Easterly 3.5 acres* North 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the west 1/2* South 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the west 1/2* North 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the west 1/2* South 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the west 1/2† *No change from the previous lot split †Parcel is located outside of the project In 1951, formal APNs were assigned to the parcels (Table 3.3–4). Also at this time, “the northeast corner of Oleander and Boyle Avenues, then 147 feet north, of the west 2.26 acres, excluding the north 241 feet, excluding the east 90 feet” was bisected from east to west. No changes were made to Lot 742 until 1957, when APNs 251-164-01 and -02 were each split into two parcels (forming APNs 251-164-10, -11, -12, and -13) (Table 3.3–5). In 1961, the southwest corner of APN 251-164-12 was split, creating an additional parcel (APN 251-164-14). The acreage of all the parcels was adjusted when the APNs were assigned, as shown on Figure 3.3–5. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–15 Table 3.3–4 1951 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project With Assigned APNs Year Original Lot Number Description APN 1951 739 North 241 feet of the west 2.26 acres* 251-163-05 Corner located 147 feet north from Oleander and Boyle avenues, on the east side of Oleander Avenue, then 80 feet north, of the west 2.26 acres, excluding the north 241 feet, excluding the east 90 feet* 251-163-04 North portion of the northeast corner of Oleander and Boyle avenues, then 147 feet north, of the west 2.26 acres, excluding the north 241 feet, excluding the east 90 feet 251-163-03 South portion of the northeast corner of Oleander and Boyle avenues, then 147 feet north, of the west 2.26 acres, excluding the north 241 feet, excluding the east 90 feet 251-163-02 East 90 feet of the west 2.26 acres excluding the north 241 feet* 251-163-01 West 2.41 acres of the east 13.46 acres* 251-163-06 West 2.28 acres of the east 11.05 acres* 251-163-07 West 2.8 acres of the east 8.77 acres* 251-163-08 West 1.99 acres of the east 6.47 acres* 251-163-09 West 2.0 acres of the east 4.48 acres* 251-163-10 East 2.28 acres* 251-163-11 742 East 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the north 1/2* 251-164-05 North 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the east 1/2, excluding the westerly 120 feet* 251-164-04 The westerly 120 feet of the north 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the east 1/2* 251-164-03 South 1/2 of the east 1/2, excluding the easterly 3.5 acres* 251-164-06 Easterly 3.5 acres* 251-164-07 North 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the west 1/2* 251-164-02 South 1/2 of the east 1/2 of the west 1/2* 251-164-08 North 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the west 1/2* 251-164-01 South 1/2 of the west 1/2 of the west 1/2† 251-164-09 *No change from the previous lot split †Parcel is located outside of the project Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–16 Table 3.3–5 1957 to 1961 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project Year Original Lot Number Previous APN New APN 1957 739 251-163-01 No change 251-163-02 251-163-03 251-163-04 251-163-05 251-163-06 251-163-07 251-163-08 251-163-09 251-163-10 251-163-11 742 251-164-01 251-164-12 251-164-13 251-164-02 251-164-10 251-164-11 251-164-03 No change 251-164-04 251-164-05 251-164-06 251-164-07 251-164-08 251-164-09* 1961 739 No change 742 251-164-03 No change 251-164-04 251-164-05 251-164-06 251-164-07 251-164-08 251-164-09* 251-164-10 251-164-11 251-164-12 251-164-12 251-164-14 251-164-13 No change *Parcel is located outside of the project Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–18 In 1971, APN 251-164-13 of Lot 742 was divided into APNs 251-164-15 and -16 and in 1972, APN 251-164-08 of Lot 742 was divided into APNs 251-164-17, -18, and -19. No changes were made to Lot 739 between 1957 and 1975. Table 3.3–6 details the lot splits that are associated with Figure 3.3–6. Table 3.3–6 1962 to 1975 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project Year Original Lot Number Previous APN New APN 1971 739 No change 742 251-164-03 No change 251-164-04 251-164-05 251-164-06 251-164-07 251-164-08 251-164-09 251-164-10 251-164-11 251-164-12 251-164-13 251-164-15 251-164-16 251-164-14 No change 1972 739 No change 742 251-164-03 No change 251-164-04 251-164-05 251-164-06 251-164-07 251-164-08 251-164-17 251-164-18 251-164-19 251-164-09* No change 251-164-10 251-164-11 251-164-12 251-164-14 251-164-15 251-164-16 *Parcel is located outside of the project Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–20 In 2021, lots 739 and 742 were split into their current configuration. Within Lot 739, APN 251-163-11 was divided as APNs 251-163-12 and -13. Within Lot 742, APN 251-164-05 was divided as APNs 251-164-22 and -23; APN 251-164-09 was divided as APNs 251-164-26 and - 27; and APNs 251-164-17, -18, and -19 were combined as APN 251-164-20. At an unknown date, APNs 251-164-06 and -07 were combined as APN 251-164-21, which was divided into APNs 251-164-24 and -25 by 2021. APNs 251-163-12 and 251-164-22, -24, -26, and -27 are located outside the project. Table 3.3–7 details the lot splits that are associated with Figure 3.3–7. Table 3.3–7 2021 Lot Splits Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project Year Original Lot Number Previous APN New APN 2021 739 251-163-01 No change 251-163-02 251-163-03 251-163-04 251-163-05 251-163-06 251-163-07 251-163-08 251-163-09 251-163-10 251-163-11 **251-163-12 251-163-13 742 251-164-03 No change 251-164-04 251-164-05 **251-164-22 251-164-23 251-164-06 **251-164-24 251-164-07 251-164-25 251-164-09 **251-164-26 **251-164-27 251-164-10 No change 251-164-11 251-164-12 251-164-14 251-164-15 251-164-16 251-164-17 251-164-20 251-164-18 251-164-19 *Parcel is located outside of the project Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–22 3.3.2 Property Ownership History Of the previously discussed parcels within the project, eight are associated with historic structures (Table 3.3–8). The following sections details the relevant property ownership of the associated structures within the project. Table 3.3–8 Sites Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project by Parcel Original Lot Number Current APN Site Number 739 251-163-01 Temp-7 251-163-02 Temp-5 251-163-03 Temp-3 251-163-04 Temp-2 251-163-05 Temp-1 251-163-06 No historic structures 251-163-07 251-163-08 Temp-8 251-163-09 No historic structures 251-163-10 251-163-13 742 251-164-03 No historic structures 251-164-04 251-164-10 251-164-11 251-164-12 Temp-4 251-164-14 No historic structures 251-164-15 251-164-16 Temp-6 251-164-20 No historic structures 251-164-23 251-164-25 Site Temp-1 (10349 Oleander Avenue/1396 Boyle Avenue) The County of San Bernardino Parcel Information Management System indicates that the single-family residence located at 10349 Oleander Avenue was built in 1923. At that time, the property was owned by the Fontana Farms Company. In 1924, ownership of the property was transferred to the Pacific South West Trust and Savings Bank Corporation, and in 1925, it was transferred to the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company. Following the subdivision of the property in 1926 (see Section 3.3.3‒1), Joseph Kischner purchased the land and a year later, transferred ownership to Erdmann “Ed” and Anna Grikscheit. When the Grikscheits purchased Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–23 the property in 1927, the address of the residence was 1396 Boyle Avenue. Anna and Ed Grikscheit were both born in Germany in 1864. By 1905, the couple had emigrated to Hennepin, Minnesota with their four children (Ancestry.com 2007a). After their children were grown, in 1927, Erdmann and Anna moved to Fontana (San Bernardino County Sun 1938a). The Grikscheits owned the property from 1927 until the late 1930s. Between 1928 and 1930, Ed Grikscheit worked as a watchman and Anna was a housewife (Ancestry.com 2017a). The 10349 Oleander Avenue residence is first visible in a 1933 aerial photograph (Plate 3.3–2) and more clearly visible in a 1938 aerial photograph (Plate 3.3–3). Anna Grikscheit passed away in April 1938 and Ed in July 1938 (San Bernardino County Sun 1938a, 1938b, 1938c). In 1939, the mortgage on the property was released by the Board of Supervisors and the property was transferred to Clyde Nichols. Between 1938 and 1953, the building was expanded to the east via two large additions, which doubled the size of the original residence. During that time, the property was owned by several different individuals. The first owner after 1939 was Clyde Vernon Nicholls, who was born in Illinois in 1905. Prior to leaving the state, he married Emily Cravens, who was born in Illinois in 1899. The couple lived in Illinois until at least 1935, then Minnesota for one year, then to California in 1939. Both Clyde and Emily Nicholls listed on the 1940 census that they received pensions rather than working (Ancestry.com 2012a). Circa 1942, they moved to Blythe, California, and the property was transferred to William and Emma E. Faulk. A year later, ownership was transferred to Byron P. and Bertha D. Peirson. Byron Paul Peirson was born in New York in 1905. In 1924, he married Bertha Steighler, also of New York. The couple lived in New York until at least 1942, where Byron Peirson worked at a grocery store (Ancestry.com 2011a). After moving to Fontana, Byron Peirson became a licensed building contractor (Big Bear Life 1959). By 1944, the couple had moved to Bear Valley, California (Big Bear Life 1959). Since Peirson was a building contractor, it is possible that he built the additions on the 10349 Oleander Avenue building while living there between 1942 and 1944. Between 1939 and 1953, the property was subdivided several times. In 1945, when the residence at 16310 Boyle Avenue (Temp-5) was constructed, the 1396 Boyle Avenue address (previously 10349 Oleander Avenue) was transferred to that residence. Once complete, the Peirsons moved into the 16310 Boyle Avenue residence. By 1953, the address of the residence recorded as Temp-1 was reassigned as 10349 Oleander Avenue. Following the 1944 lot split, prior to the Peirsons moving to their new residence, Margaret Marx purchased the 10349 Oleander Avenue property. In 1945, Marx sold the property to Charles Johnstonfer, who, that same year, sold it to Thomas and Lea G. Marti. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–26 Thomas Marti was born in Italy in 1891. Marti arrived in the United States in 1912, where he lived in Chicago with his sister and brother-in-law, working as a waiter (Ancestry.com 2002). In 1931, he married Leah DeVoe of Indiana (Ancestry.com 2008). After their marriage, the couple lived in Chicago, Illinois, until the 1940s, where Thomas Marti was the proprietor of a tavern (Ancestry.com 2012a). Circa 1945, they moved to Fontana; however, no records of them living at the 10349 Oleander Avenue residence could be located. They owned the subject property until at least 1951. By 1955, the property was owned by Sam and Lydia Lampela. Sam Lampela was born in Finland in 1884 (San Bernardino County Sun 1972a). In 1963, the property was used for raising chickens. An advertisement described the residence as a two-bedroom house on one acre “equipped for raising chickens. Several chicken houses. Lots of shrubs & trees” (San Bernardino County Sun 1963). That year, the property was purchased by train engineer Joseph Wray Collins (San Bernardino County Sun 1964) and his daughter, Betty Lou McCall (Plate 3.3–4). Joseph Collins was born in Ontario, Canada, in 1899. In 1923, he married Louisa Mildred Peebles in Niagara Falls, Canada (Ancestry.com 2014). Louisa Collins was born in Niagara Falls, Canada, in 1906. In 1927, the couple immigrated to Calexico, California (Ancestry.com 2014), then moved to Long Beach. By 1929, they were living in the South Gate- Lynwood area of Los Angeles (Ancestry.com 2002), where they had Betty Lou. Betty Lou “attended and graduated from South Gate High School in 1947. She also attended Compton Junior College for two years” (The Missoulian 2008). Louisa Collins passed away in 1963 (San Bernardino County Sun 1986) and shortly after, Joseph Collins and Betty Lou McCall purchased the 10349 Oleander Avenue property. According to Assessor’s records, in 1965, ownership of the property was transferred to Betty and her husband, Hye L. McCall, II. Betty and Hye McCall were married “in Yuma, Ariz., on March 3, 1956. Together they had a son, Hye L. McCall III, and a daughter, Pamela A. McCall, whom she loved very dearly” (The Missoulian 2008). According to the Ravalli Republic (2012): [Hye McCall, II] was born Jan. 13, 1929 in Ardmore, Okla. to Hye L. and Ruby Pearl McCall. Hye attended grade school and junior high in Ardmore. Hye dropped out of school at age 13 to help support the family as his father had died when he was 8 years old. Hye had many jobs, first working at a bakery in Ardmore, then with a traveling carnival. At age 15 he went to Oklahoma City and worked for the Wonder Bread bakery. At 17 he joined the Navy and served three years. While serving he received his high school diploma from Ardmore High School. When he was discharged he went to work for Foxrig Lumber and Drilling in Oklahoma City. In 1951 he relocated to El Centro, Calif. and drove a lettuce truck. Plate 3.3‒4: Betty Lou McCall. (Photograph courtesy of The Missoulian 2008) Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–27 In 1952 he moved back to Ardmore and ran the Cattle Club for three years. Hye then moved back to Ventura, Calif. and drove a taxi for two years, then relocating to Los Angeles, he worked for the Metalizing Co. as a shop foreman. There he met and married his wife Betty Lou … In 1958 Hye went to work for Washington National Insurance, first as a salesman and later as a staff supervisor. In 1960 he took a job as salesman for RTC Technical School and sold technical school courses. In 1963 Hye relocated with his family to Fontana, Calif. and took a job with Kaiser Steel where he settled in for a career first as a laborer and then pipe inspector, until the mill closed in 1984. At that time he retired. In 2005, the McCalls sold the property to Melody Viramontes and Amador Salinas and moved to Hamilton, Montana. Betty Lou McCall passed away in Hamilton, Montana, in 2008 (The Missoulian 2008). While owned by Viramontes and Salinas, the additions on the eastern end of the 10349 Oleander Avenue building were expanded. Site Temp-2 (10367 Oleander Avenue/1211 South Oleander Avenue) The 10367 Oleander Avenue building was constructed as a Contemporary-style, single-family residence in 1946. In 1946, the Peirsons constructed a residence on the the northern portion of their parcel for for their daughter Edna Jane and her husband Harry Robert DeWeese. The 10367 Oleander Avenue residence is first visible in a 1953 aerial photograph (Plate 3.3–5). In 1947, the lot was formally split (see Section 3.3.3‒1), at which time the DeWeeses took formal ownership of the residence and property. The address of the property at this time was 1211 South Oleander Avenue. Harry DeWeese (Plate 3.3–6) was born on August 9, 1925, in San Bernardino and Edna Jane Perison was born on April 10, 1926, in Fontana. The couple married on June 26, 1945, in Newport, Oregon. Harry was a member of the United States Coast Guard at the time (San Bernardino County Sun 1943). The DeWeesees moved back to Fontana, where they had their first child on March 29, 1946, while living with Edna’s parents at 1396 Boyle Avenue (16310 Boyle Avenue/Temp-5) (San Bernardino County Sun 1946). Plate 3.3‒6: Harry DeWeese. (Photograph courtesy of San Bernardino County Sun 1943) Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–29 In January 1947, Harry DeWeese was appointed as a fireman to the San Bernardino Fire Department (San Bernardino County Sun 1947a) and the DeWeeses moved into the 1211 South Oleander Avenue residence. However, that same year, prior to the birth of their second child on September 18, 1947 (San Bernardino County Sun 1947b), they moved away. In 1948, they sold the property it to Frances D. Buck. Buck owned the property until 1961, but San Bernardino County Voter Lists indicate that she never actually lived on the property. John R. and Mary I. DeVoss are the listed residents of the property from 1950 until at least 1962. According to San Bernardino Voter Lists, during this time, between 1954 and 1956, the address of the property changed from 1211 South Oleander Avenue to 10367 Oleander Avenue. In 1961, Elizabeth A. Liner purchased the property, and in 1963, sold it to James and Jack Sowell. In 1968, the Sowells sold the property to Isabelle Lloyd. In 1971 and 1972, advertisements were placed in the San Bernardino County Sun listing the home for rent (Plate 3.3–7). Lloyd maintained sole ownership of the property until 1980, when Clara A. and Harry M. Dayton were added to the deed. Bi State Development took full ownership of the property in 1990 and Frances and Donald A. Trumble purchased it that same year. In 1995, Leonardo Ruelas purchased the property, and in 2004, he added his wife, Guadalupe, as an owner. In 2010, Wells Fargo took ownership of the property and that same year, it was sold to Ivan and Sonia C. Meza Hidalgo. The Hidalgos owned the 10367 Oleander Avenue property until 2021, when Duke Realty purchased it for this project. Site Temp-3 (10375 Oleander Avenue/1213 South Oleander Avenue) The 10375 Oleander Avenue building was originally constructed as a Minimal Traditional- style, single-family residence in 1950, which is first visible on the 1953 aerial photograph (see Plate 3.3–5). At that time, Eliza and George Beiser owned the parcel, where they built a residence on the northern end for Eliza’s daughter Emma and her husband Jesse Weirich. In 1951, the lot was formally split (see Section 3.3.3‒1) and the Weirichs took ownership of the parcel and residence. When they moved onto the property, the residence had the address of 1213 South Oleander Avenue, but by 1952, the address had changed to 10375 Oleander Avenue. Emma Weirich was born on June 25, 1899, in Ohio. She married Jesse Van Cise on December 4, 1916, in Detroit, Michigan (Ancestry.com 2015). They had two children, Virginia (1919) and Ruth Mae (circa 1926). By 1930, they had divorced and Emma was living in Toledo, Ohio, with her daughters (Ancestry.com 2002). Plate 3.3‒7: Advertisement to rent 10367 Oleander Avenue. (Advertisement courtesy of San Bernardino County Sun 1971) Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–30 Jesse Weirich was born on December 3, 1889, in Colton, Ohio. He married Florence Ellen Wilson on December 10, 1910, in Colton, Ohio (Ancestry.com 2022a) (Plate 3.3‒8). The couple had six children: Lawrence Arthur (1913), Paul Delbert (1915), Jessie Ellen (1917), Laurel Irene (1921), Ruth Elizabeth (1923), and Edna Glory (1926). Between 1926 and 1930, the two were divorced. The 1930 Federal Census indicates that Jesse was a lodger in Emma Van Cise’s house that year, and between 1930 and 1940, she and Jesse were married (Ancestry.com 2002, 2012a). In 1948, they moved to Fontana with Emma’s mother and stepfather, the Biesers (The Sandusky Register 1959). On December 10, 1952, just a year after they moved into their new house at 1213 South Oleander Avenue, Emma died unexpectedly after a long bout with illness (Ancestry.com 1952). Jesse continued to own the 10367 Oleander Avenue property until he died of lung cancer on March 5, 1959. Following Jesse’s death, in 1959, Edna J. Rylczyski and Ora and Joan S. Scott purchased the property and in 1961, sold it to Florence Canterberry, who in 1962, sold it to Naomi J. and Vernon E. Cameron. In 1963, the Camerons sold the property in joint ownership to Bette G. Morck and Henrietta Halls. By 1966, Morck and Halls had sold the property to Pamela P. and Marinus Grotenhuis. Following their divorce in 1982, Marinus Grotenhuis retained sole ownership of the property until 1992, when it was sold to Grace Vargas. In 1994, Vargas sold the property to Eliazar and Virginia Ruelas. In 2003, the property was deeded to their son, Leonardo Ruelas, who in 2006, sold it to Jorge L. and Aide Payan. The Payans owned 10367 Oleander Avenue until 2021, when it was sold to Duke Realty. Site Temp-4 (10475 Oleander Avenue) The 10475 Oleander Avenue building was originally constructed as a Ranch-style, single- family residence in 1966, which is first visible on the 1966 aerial photograph (Plate 3.3–9). In 1961 the property was formally split into APN 251-164-12 (see Section 3.3.3‒1) and Clarance C. and Pauline H. Hunt purchased the parcel. The Hunts did not live on the property until they built their residence in 1966. Plate 3.3‒8: Jesse Weirich (male in chair) and Florence Wilson (female in chair) circa 1910. (Photograph courtesy of Ancestry.com) Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–32 Clarence Clifford Hunt was born on July 17, 1912, in Hanging Rock, West Virginia. He married Florence Mae Hunt, with whom he had a son, Charles Leonard Hunt. Following Florence’s death in 1956 (San Bernardino County Sun 1956a), Hunt married Pauline, who was born in 1916 (Ancestry.com 2012b). In 1976, the Hunts sold the property to Norman R. and Irene S. Johnson, who retained ownership until 1979. Clarence Hunt died in 2001 and Pauline Hunt in 2005 (Ancestry.com 2012b). In 1979, George Sherman, Jr. and Julie Ann Felshaw purchased the property. George Felshaw, Jr. was born on May 5, 1947 (Ancestry.com 2010a). Julie Ann Parmeter was born on July 21, 1951, in Oneida, New York. The couple had three children, Brian, John, and Stephan (Ancestry.com 2006). Following Julie’s death in 2010, the property was transferred to a family trust. In 2012, Javier R. and Beatriz A. Ramirez purchased the property. In 2015, Beatriz Ramirez became the sole owner of the property until 2021, when it was purchased by Duke Realty. Site Temp-5 (16310 Boyle Avenue/1396 Boyle Avenue) The 16310 Boyle Avenue building was originally constructed as a Transitional Ranch- style, single-residence in 1945 and is first visible on the 1953 aerial photograph (see Plate 3.3–5). The property underwent several lot splits between 1945 and 1947 (see Section 3.3.3–1) while owned by Byron and Bertha Peirson. As stated previously, when the Peirsons constructed the 1945 residence at the northeast corner of Boyle and Oleander avenues, the 1396 Boyle Avenue address was transferred to this property from 10349 Oleander Avenue (Temp-1). See the previous discussion of Temp-1 for a history of the Peirsons. In 1948, the Peirsons sold the parcel containing 1396 Boyle Avenue to Eliza Virginia (Jenny) and George Adolph Beiser. In 1951, the property was subdivided one final time into its current configuration (see Section 3.3.3–1) and by 1952, the address of the property had changed to 16310 Boyle Avenue. Eliza Virginia (Jenny) Willett was born in Toledo, Ohio, on January 30, 1882 (Ancestry.com 2000). She married John C. Dailey in 1899 and shortly after had their first child, Emma Henrietta, on June 25, 1899 (Ancestry.com 2000). Their second child, Laurence J., was born on December 28, 1901 (Ancestry.com 2012b). By 1911, Eliza had divorced John and married his brother Raymond on April 21, 1911. Sometime prior to 1933, Eliza and Raymond were divorced (Ancestry.com 2016a). George Adoph Beiser was born on July 31, 1884, in Chicago, Illinois (Ancestry.com 2012b). He married Eva Corell Beiser on June 23, 1906, in Hamilton, Ohio (Ancestry.com 2016a). They remained married until Eva’s death on October 7, 1940. George and Jenny Beiser were married in 1942 while living in Ohio (Ancestry.com 2012b). Between 1945 and 1948, they moved to California (Ancestry.com 2011b). The Beisers purchased the 16310 Boyle Avenue property in 1948. In 1950, they built a residence on the north end for Eliza’s daughter Emma and her husband Jesse Weirich (see Temp-3/10375 Oleander Avenue discussion). In 1951, the lot was split into its current configuration and the Beisers remained living in the southern portion (Temp-5/16310 Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–33 Boyle Avenue) and the Weirichs took ownership over the northern section (Temp-3/10375 Oleander Avenue). George Beiser died on March 8, 1956, and Jenny Beiser on January 18, 1958 (Ancestry.com 2000). Following Jenny Beiser’s death in 1958, ownership of the 16310 Boyle Avenue parcel was transferred to Jesse Weirich’s daughter, Jessie Ellen Weirich Axton, and her husband Charles Joseph Axton. San Bernardino County Voter Records indicate that the Axtons were living in Los Angeles while they owned the parcel from 1958 to 1962 (Ancestry.com 2017a). In 1962, Walter Sanford and Josephine Eva Coates purchased the property. Walter died on August 1, 1971, and sole ownership of the property was transferred to Josephine (Ancestry.com 2000). In 1974, Coates added her daughter, Pearl Oesterreich, to the property’s deed. Coates and Oesterreich shared ownership of the property until 1976, when they sold it to Robert M. and Frances M. Vitale. San Bernardino County Voter Records indicate that neither Coates nor Oesterreich ever lived at 16310 Boyle Avenue while they owned the property (Ancestry.com 2017a). In 1980, Wayne Del Horner purchased the property and in 1983, sold it to Amador Arteada and Maria N. Salinas. In 1995, Salinas gained sole ownership of 16310 Boyle Avenue until 2016, when ownership passed to Humberto Salinas. Duke Realty purchased the property in 2021 for the current project. Site Temp-6 (16321 Boyle Avenue/1395 Boyle Avenue) The 16321 Boyle Avenue building was originally constructed in an unknown style as a single-family residence in 1926 and is first visible on the 1933 aerial photograph (see Plate 3.3‒ 2). That year, Albert and Marie Zaugg purchased the property. In 1934, the residence was remodeled; however, no exterior changes can be seen on the 1938 aerial photograph (see Plate 3.3‒3). By 1936, the address for the residence was 1395 Boyle Avenue (Ancestry.com 2017a). Albert Zaugg was born on September 18, 1872, in Soleure, Switzerland. Marie (Mary) Bulhmann was born on April 20, 1871, also in Switzerland. On November 17, 1899, they had their son Arthur in Lausanne, Switzerland. The Zauggs immigrated to Detroit, Michigan, in October 1920 from Lausanne (Ancestry.com 2010b). The Zauggs purchased the 16321 Boyle Avenue property in 1926. The 1930 Federal Census indicates that Albert was working as a laborer for various jobs, and by 1940, he and Marie were retired (Ancestry.com 2002, 2012a). Marie Zaugg died on July 7, 1943, and Albert Zaugg on May 28, 1945, while living at (then) 1395 Boyle Avenue. Ownership of the property passed to Arthur Zaugg, who in 1946, sold it to Lew Dwight and Beulah Evelyn (Plate 3.3–10) McCoy. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–34 Lew Dwight McCoy was born on November 20, 1913, in Dawes, Nebraska, and died on June 26, 1980 (Ancestry.com 2000, 2011a). Beulah Evelyn Smith was born on March 12, 1913 and died on May 10, 2011. According to the obituary for Beulah McCoy: Beulah was the tenth child of eleven children born to George W. Smith and Susannah Alcorn Smith, March 12, 1913, in Crawford, Nebraska. She attended school in Crawford and finished high school in Alliance, Nebraska. Beulah married Lew “Bud” McCoy in 1933, and the couple were blessed with two children, daughter, Rochelle, in 1936 and son, Errol, in 1941. She taught country schools for several years, and then in 1946, the family moved to Fontana, California where they made their home until 1987. Beulah continued her education in California and earned her Masters Degree in Early development. They then subsequently built and opened her Mother Goose Nursery School which she ran for twenty years. During those twenty years, she was elected for a two year term as president of the Southern California Nursery School Association. The nursery school was sold and Lew passes away in 1980. In 1987, Beulah married Tom W. Glendy, sold her home in California and they moved to Crawford. She was again widowed in 1999 when Tom passed away. In 2000, she moved into an apartment connected to her daughter’s home in Crawford and then ponderosa Villa Nursing Home until the time of her demise. (Ancestry.com 2012b) The property was subdivided further in 1971 (see Section 3.3.3‒1), after which the McCoys retained ownership of APN 251-164-16. Also in 1971, Beulah McCoy became the sole owner of the property. In 1988, she sold the property to Phillip and Elaine V. Chan, who kept it until 1990, when it was sold to Thomas Chacon. In 2010, the Bank of America gained ownership and in 2011, Patty Rojvongpaisal purchased the property. From 2013 to 2021, the property was held by the Rojvongpaisal Family Trust before being purchased by Duke Realty for the current project. Site Temp-7 (16326 Boyle Avenue/1394 Boyle Avenue) The 16326 Boyle Avenue property contains three buildings that were constructed between 1930 and 1985. The southernmost residence was constructed in 1930 and is first visible on the 1933 aerial photograph (see Plate 3.3‒2). The residence to the north of the 1930 residence was constructed between 1962 and 1966 (see Plates 3.3‒9 and 3.3‒11). The building farthest north on the parcel is a non-historic manufactured home that was constructed between 1977 and 1985 (Plates 3.3‒12 and 3.3‒13). Plate 3.3‒10: Beulah McCoy. (Photograph courtesy of FindAGrave.com) Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–38 In 1930, while the Grikscheists were living at 10349 Oleander Avenue, the 16326 Boyle Avenue (1394 Boyle Avenue) residence was constructed. According to the San Bernardino County Lot Book, no other residents or owners are listed in relationship to 251-163-01, even though a residence was constructed in 1930. A search of the San Bernardino County Voter Lists indicates that Ralph Clarence and Ida Marie Swanson were living at 1394 Boyle Avenue in 1934 (Ancestry.com 2017a). While the 1930 Federal Census (Ancestry.com 2002) does not list dwelling addresses, it is likely that the Swansons were residing at 1394 Boyle Avenue in 1930 when the residence was constructed, as their neighbors listed in the 1930 census are all the same owners listed in the San Bernardino County Lot Book, in order from east to west. The voter lists indicate that the Swansons resided at 1394 Boyle Avenue until at least 1938, and the 1940 Federal Census indicates that the Swansons had moved from the residence by that time (Ancestry.com 2012a, 2017a). Ralph Clarence Swanson was born on October 28, 1892, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He served in the army in World War I as a private, first class in the 345th machine gun battalion (Ancestry.com 2012b), where he lost his right eye (Ancestry.com 2011a). Following his service, he joined the Disabled American Veterans in Fontana, Post 87. Ida Marie Swanson was born on August 6, 1899, in Minnesota to Ed and Anna Griksheit, the listed owners of the parcel from 1927 to 1939. Ralph and Ida Swanson were married in Minnesota on February 17, 1922 (MOMS 2002) and had four children: Ralph B. in 1922, Robert Paul in 1923, George Allen in 1927, and Gloria Anne in 1929. The couple remained at 16326 Boyle Avenue (then 1394 Boyle Avenue) until 1939, when the parcel was sold to Clyde Nichols (see Temp-1 discussion). The 1930 residence was likely constructed by Ida Swanson’s parents for her family, and they remained there until her parents died in 1938 (see Temp-1 discussion). Ralph Swanson died at the age of 61 on December 15, 1953, in Long Beach, California (San Bernardino County Sun 1953) and Ida Swanson died at the age of 79 on January 22, 1979 (Ancestry.com 2012b). The property wasn’t formally split from the northern parcel until 1945 (see Section 3.3‒1). Following the 1945 lot split, the next listed residents of the property are Charles Salvatore and Frances Loretta Zaffuto. Charles Zaffuto was born on April 9, 1911, in Delancey, Pennsylvania and Frances Loretta Polichetti was born on May 3, 1913, in Dunkirk, New York, both to Italian immigrants. The couple married on November 23, 1932, in Dunkirk, New York, and had two boys and three girls (Plate 3.3–14). Charles Zaffuto died on May 26, 1994, in Pomona, California (San Bernardino County Sun 1994) and Frances Zaffuto died on March 27, Plate 3.3‒14: Charles and Frances Zafutto and their children. (Photograph courtesy of Ancestry.com) Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–39 1989, in San Bernardino, California (Ancestry.com 2000). In 1949, the Zafuttos sold the 1394 Boyle Avenue property to Jaime Hendlin who, in 1950, sold it to Robert L. and Mary Ethel Tate. The Tates lived at 1394 Boyle Avenue until 1954, when they sold to property to Edward C. Sieg who, in 1955, sold it to William Kaywood and Vera Opal Agan. Between 1953 and 1954, the address of the residence changed to 16326 Boyle Avenue. William Agan was born in Miami, Oklahoma, on July 30, 1898. He married Icel Alberta Pifer on January 14, 1916, in Missouri (Ancestry.com 2007b). Between 1917 and 1922, they had three children: Jack Kaywood (April 19, 1917), Ruth Irene (September 1, 1919), and Clair Ralph (February 23, 1922). Sometime between Clair’s birth and the year 1928, Icel and William divorced. Prior to 1929, William married Vera Opal Eden. Vera Opal Eden was born in Missouri in 1908 (Ancestry.com 2002). Together they had two children: Vera Ellen (February 14, 1929) and Betty Jean (November 20, 1930). “Difficult times due to the Great Depression led [the Agans] to move to Los Angeles in 1938” (The News Tribune 2017). During their time in California, William worked as a steel layout man. He died at the 16326 Boyle Avenue Residence on May 29, 1956 (San Bernardino County Sun 1956b). Following his death, Vera married their neighbor, Walter A. Deas, who lived across the street at 16351 Boyle Avenue (1383 Boyle Avenue), on November 22, 1957. Aerial photographs indicate that a second residence was constructed behind the original 1930 residence sometime between 1962 and 1966 (see Plates 3.3–9 and 3.3–11). However, this structure was not given its own address. The 16326 Boyle Avenue property remained in Agans’ names until 1971, when sole ownership was transferred to Vera. In 1974, Vera Agan sold the property to Donald E. Dayton and she and Deas moved to Tacoma, Washington (The News Tribune 2017). Vera Agan died on May 4, 1996, in Tacoma (Ancestry.com 2011c). Donald E. Dayton owned the 16326 Boyle Avenue property from 1974 until 1987, when he sold it to Salvador and Lidia Garcia. During Dayton’s ownership, a manufactured home was constructed in the northern portion of the parcel between 1977 and 1985 (see Plates 3.3–12 and 3.3–13). The Garcias lived at the property until 2002, when they sold it to Arturo and Victor Banuelos. The Banuelos transferred ownership of the property in 2006 to Santiago Caballero and Zepeda Evaristo, who retained it until 2021, when it was sold to Duke Realty for the current project. Site Temp-8 (16398 Boyle Avenue/1370 Boyle Avenue) The 16398 Boyle Avenue building was originally constructed as a single-family residence in 1930 and is first visible on the 1933 aerial photograph (see Plate 3.3–2). When the residence was constructed, the property was owned by the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company. When the lot was split in 1932, it was purchased by the Fontana Farms Company, who owned the property until 1934, when the property was split again (see Section 3.3.3‒1). Following this split, it was purchased by Patrick and Clara Lulu Cannon. It doesn’t appear that the residence was used until the Cannons purchased the property. San Bernardino County Voter Lists indicate that the Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–40 address of Temp-8 was 1370 Boyle Avenue from 1934 until 1955 (Ancestry.com 2017a). Patrick and Clara Lulu Cannon were the first residents of 13698 Boyle Avenue (1370 Boyle Avenue). Clara Lulu Northup (Plate 3.3‒15) was born in Pokagon, Michigan, circa 1864, and Patrick Cannon was born in Illinois circa 1864. The couple was married on May 20, 1890, and had two children in Akron, Iowa: Alfred Clark on November 3, 1893, and Kittie Iona on September 18, 1895 (Ancestry.com 2017b). In 1928 and 1930, the Cannons lived on a farm at an unnumbered residence on Boyle Avenue (Ancestry.com 2002, 2017a). The 1940 Federal Census indicates that the home had received the official address of 1370 Boyle Avenue by that year and that the Cannons lived in that same home in 1935 (Ancestry.com 2012a). Clara Cannon died on April 15, 1941(San Bernardino County Sun 1941). In 1946, Patrick Cannon moved from 1370 Boyle Avenue to San Diego (Ancestry.com 2017a; San Diego Union 1949) and died on August 4, 1949 (San Bernardino County Sun 1949). The 13698 Boyle Avenue (1370 Boyle Avenue) residence is still listed in the San Bernardino County Assessor’s lot books as being owned by Patrick Cannon until 1955; however, the voter lists indicate that Marion Cecil and Caroline M. Waddell had moved into the residence by 1952 (Ancestry.com 2017a). Marion Waddell was born on April 13, 1901, in Greenville, Tennessee (Ancestry.com 2012c). In 1913, the Waddell family moved to Riverside, California (San Bernardino County Sun 1966). He married Margaret Edna in 1944. That same year, their marriage was annulled Marion Waddell began working for the Kaiser Steel Company (San Bernardino County Sun 1966). Sometime after his annulment in 1944, Waddell married Caroline Eichenberg (San Bernardino County Sun 1966). Caroline M. Eichenberg was born in Warrensville, Ohio, in December 1899 (Ancestry.com 2004). She married John Guy Staley on September 25, 1916, in Newport, Kentucky (Ancestry.com 2016b), and they were divorced on November 23, 1919. She then married George Edward Jaggard on July 19, 1920, in Warrensville, Ohio (Ancestry.com 2010c), with whom she had two children, Elenora Anna and George, Jr. George Jaggard, Sr. died on April 4, 1925, after which Caroline was married to Elmer Karres until at least 1940 (Ancestry.com 2012a). Marion Waddell lived at 16398 Boyle Avenue until his death on July 26, 1966 (San Bernardino County Sun 1966). According to Assessor’s records, Caroline Waddell remained at 16398 Boyle Avenue from circa 1952 until 1974. At the time of her death in August 1984, she was living in central Point, Oregon (Ancestry.com 2022b). From 1974 to 1976, Joseph H. and Tammye R. Howard owned the 16398 Boyle Avenue property. In 1976, Irvin L. and Margaret C. Kelly purchased the property and lived in the residence Plate 3.3‒14: Clara Lulu Cannon circa 1884. (Photograph courtesy of FindAGrave.com) Plate 3.3‒15: Clara Lulu Cannon circa 1884. (Photograph courtesy of FindAGrave.com) Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–41 until 1989. From 1989 to 2007, Dennis J. and Hazel I. Miller owned the property and from 2007 to 2012, Louis J. Atilano owned the property. The U.S. Bank took ownership from 2012 to 2014, when the property was purchased by Ohno Construction Company. Ohno Construction Company owned the property until 2021, when it was purchased by Duke Realty for the current project. 3.3.3 Description of Surveyed Resources Site Temp-1 (10349 Oleander Avenue) The 10349 Oleander Avenue single-family residence was constructed in 1923 in an unknown architectural style. It currently exhibits characteristics of the Craftsman style, but these features do not appear to be original. The building features a cross-gabled roof with a moderate eave overhang and fascia and verge boards covering the eaves. The roof is covered in composite shingles and the building is clad in stucco. The primary (west) façade of the building is side- gabled and possesses a non-original, front-gabled, partial-width front porch (Plate 3.3–16). The porch roof is supported by circular concrete columns that extend to ground level without a break and feature a Mediterranean-style embellishment at the base. The columns do not possess a capital. The main entrance to the residence is located within the front porch on the west façade. The main entry consists of a non-original set of double wood-panel doors with oval-shaped, etched glass lites in the upper half. The roofline north of the front porch on the west façade is angled at a higher pitch than the roofline south of the front porch (Plates 3.3–17 and 3.3–18). One non-original, aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding window is located on the west façade, south of the front porch (see Plate 3.3–16). The dates of these modifications are unknown. Between 1938 and 1953 (see Plates 3.3–3 and 3.3–5), the rear of the building was expanded with several flat-roofed additions (Plate 3.3–19). These additions were not constructed in any specific architectural style and are covered in a rough stucco texture. Also between 1938 and 1953, a single-wide manufactured home was moved to the property. It features a side-gabled, low- pitched roof and is clad in plywood siding. All windows have been replaced with vinyl-framed, horizontal-sliding windows (Plate 3.3–20). The detached garage and corrugated metal canopy located northeast of the residence and south of the manufactured home were not constructed until after 1985 and do not meet the minimum age threshold to be considered historic (Plate 3.3–21). Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–48 Site Temp-2 (10367 Oleander Avenue) The 10367 Oleander Avenue building was constructed in 1946 as a Contemporary-style, single-family residence. The building currently features a simple rectangular footprint with a stucco exterior (Plate 3.3–22). Fenestration consists of aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows with snap-on muntins. The roof is front-gabled, has an extremely low, almost flat pitch with a wide enclosed eave overhang, and is covered in rolled roofing. Aerial imagery from 1953 to 1962 (see Plates 3.3–5 and 3.3–11) indicates that the building was originally “L”-shaped, but between 1977 and 1985 (Plate 3.3–12 and 3.3–13), the northwest corner was filled in, creating a rectangle. A break in the roofline is present where the 1977 to 1985 addition meets the original residence (Plate 3.3–23). The front entry, which consists of a set of double, solid wood-panel, half-lite doors, is located in the 1977 to 1985 addition. It is unknown where the original front entry was located. As the windows throughout the building match, including the window in the 1977 to 1985 addition, it is likely that all windows were replaced with the current windows after the 1977 to 1985 addition was completed. A small wood shed is located immediately southeast of the residence and a modern RV carport is located to the northeast (see Plates 3.3–22 and 3.3–23). Neither the shed nor the RV carport are present on aerial imagery in 1985 (see Plate 3.3–13) and, as such, do not meet the minimum age threshold to be considered historic structures. Site Temp-3 (10375 Oleander Avenue) The 10375 Oleander Avenue building was constructed in 1950 as a Minimal Traditional- style, single-family residence. As evidenced by the 1953 aerial photograph (see Plate 3.3–5), the building originally featured a simple square footprint. The original portion of the building is front- gabled with a moderate, unenclosed eave overhang. The roof is covered in composite shingles. The exterior of the original portion of the building is covered in a smooth texture stucco; however, narrow horizontal wood siding is present in the gable ends (Plate 3.3–24). Fenestration is not original and consists of aluminum-framed, single-hung and horizontal-sliding windows (see Plate 3.3–24). Between 1962 and 1966 (see Plates 3.3–9 and 3.3–11), two additions were constructed onto the building: a carport on the west façade of the building and a side-gabled building section with T1-11 vertical wood siding on the western end of the south facade (Plate 3.3–25). The same T1-11 siding was also added to the south façade of the original residence at an unknown date. A patio cover was built in the “L” created by the addition and original portion of the building between 1962 and 1966. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–53 Site Temp-4 (10475 Oleander Avenue) The 10475 Oleander Avenue building was constructed in 1966 as a Ranch-style, single- family residence with an attached garage. The building currently features a simple rectangular footprint with primarily a stucco exterior (Plate 3.3–26). The southern portion of the west façade features horizontal wood siding in the gable end, vertical wood siding on the upper portion, and a brick wainscot on the lower portion (Plate 3.3–27). Fenestration throughout the residence consists of non-original, vinyl-framed, horizontal-sliding windows. The roof is cross hipped with a gable- on-hip feature at the north end and a front-facing gable on the southern end. Overall, the roof is a medium pitch with a wide enclosed eave overhang and is covered in composite shingles (Plate 3.3–28). The garage door is non-original, aluminum, segmented, and automatic. A brick chimney, which does not appear original, is present on the south façade (Plate 3.3–29). Site Temp-5 (16310 Boyle Avenue) The single-family residence at 16310 Boyle Avenue was constructed in 1945, likely in the Transitional Ranch style. The building currently features a simple rectangular footprint with a non-original, extremely coarse stucco exterior (Plates 3.3–30 and 3.3–31). Fenestration throughout the residence consists of non-original, aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows. The roof is cross-gabled with the side-gabled portion facing Boyle Avenue and a rear-facing gable on the north façade (Plates 3.3–32 and 3.3–33). The roof is covered in composite shingles and possesses a minimal eave overhang. A detached garage with a gabled roof is present at the rear of the building. Aerial imagery indicates that the garage was constructed by 1953 and may be original to the property (see Plate 3.3–5). The doors on the detached garage are two large, solid boards on hinges rather than typical doors. A corrugated metal carport is present in the “L” created by the rear-facing gable and the garage. The carport was added after 1985 and does not meet the minimum age threshold to be considered historic. Site Temp-6 (16321 Boyle Avenue) The 16321 Boyle Avenue single-family residence was constructed in 1926, likely in the Craftsman architectural style. The building currently features a complex floorplan with several cross-gabled building sections extending off the main, rectangular section of the residence (Plates 3.3–34 and 3.3–35). However, only the north and west gables are original. Between 1959 and 1962 (see Plates 3.3–11 and 3.3–36), a gabled addition was constructed onto the east façade of the building and a shed-roofed addition onto the south facade (see Plate 3.3–35). Original windows were wood-framed and double-hung. Currently, fenestration throughout the residence consists of non-original, aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows in different- sized openings that were modified between 2008 and 2012 (Plates 3.3–37 and 3.3–38). The window on the north façade replaced a non-original, sliding glass door with two side lites that was installed prior to 2007 (Plate 3.3–39). The previous window sizes are visible in the stucco as larger squares around the windows. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–68 Although a garage was present in 1933, the current detached garage was not added until sometime between 1938 and 1953 (see Plates 3.3–3 and 3.3–5). The current garage features a low- pitched, hipped roof with a wide enclosed eave overhang. The garage has a single bay and a double bay. Both garage doors are non-original, segmented, and aluminum (Plate 3.3–40). Site Temp-7 (16326 Boyle Avenue) The 16326 Boyle Avenue property consists of three separate residences constructed between 1930 and 1985. The southernmost residence was constructed in 1930 and is first visible in aerial photographs in 1933 (see Plate 3.3–2). The building was constructed in an unknown style as a simple, side-gabled residence with a moderate eave overhang. Between 1938 and 1953 (see Plates 3.3–3 and 3.3–5), a front-gabled addition was constructed onto the western half of the north façade (Plate 3.3–41). In 2006, the building was clad in a rough texture stucco and featured rolled roofing and a small front porch with a shed roof supported by 4x4-inch posts. Fenestration in 2006 consisted of a mixture of wood-framed, single-hung and horizontal-sliding windows and aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows. Between 2006 and 2007, a gabled roof was added to the front porch and all windows were replaced with new, larger, aluminum-framed, horizontal- sliding windows with snap-on muntins (Plate 3.3–42). Thick wood trim and windowsills were added to each of the windows. Also between 2006 and 2007, the stucco was refinished with a heavier texture and composite shingles were added to the roof (Plates 3.3–43 and 3.3–44). The residence north of the 1930 residence was constructed between 1962 and 1966 in a simple Ranch style (see Plates 3.3–9 and 3.3–11). The side-gabled building is covered in a sand texture stucco. The roof features a moderate eave overhang with a slight extension of the main roof over the front entrance on the west façade. The roof is clad in composite shingles. The 1962 to 1966 residence features newer aluminum-framed sliding windows with thick wood trim and windowsills that match those on the 1930 residence, indicating that they were likely added between 2006 and 2007 (Plate 3.3–45). The only difference is that windows on the 1962 to 1966 residence do not feature snap-on muntins. The northernmost residence is a small, flat-roofed, manufactured home (Plate 3.3–46) that was constructed between 1977 and 1985 (see Plates 3.3–12 and 3.3–13). The building does not meet the minimum age threshold to be considered historic and is not considered a contributor to Site Temp-7. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–76 Site Temp-8 (16398 Boyle Avenue) The 16398 Boyle Avenue building was constructed in 1930 as a simple, side-gabled, single-family residence in an unknown style. The building is first visible in a 1933 aerial photograph (see Plate 3.3–2). Between 1977 and 1985 (see Plates 3.3–12 and 3.3–13), a small side-gabled addition was constructed onto the west façade of the building and a shed-roofed addition was constructed onto the north façade (Plate 3.3–47). The side-gabled addition was removed between 2012 and 2018 (Plates 3.3–48 and 3.3–49), but the shed-roofed addition is still present (Plates 3.3–50 to 3.3–52). When the side-gabled addition was removed, windows on the west façade of the shed-roofed addition were updated to more modern, aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows than those present on the rest of the building (see Plate 3.3–52). In 2012, the building featured a wood wainscot and trim around non-original, aluminum- framed windows and the non-original, solid wood-panel front door. When the property was remodeled in 2018, the wainscot and trim were removed. In addition, an uncovered concrete porch was added to the south façade, which features a set of concrete steps on the west side and a concrete ramp on the east. A simple wood railing supported by approximately four-foot-high, 4x4-inch posts is present along the perimeter of the ramp and concrete slab (Plate 3.3–53). 3.3.4 Significance Evaluations CEQA guidelines (Section 15064.5) address archaeological and historic resources, noting that physical changes that would demolish or materially alter in an adverse manner those characteristics that convey the historic significance of the resource and justify its listing on inventories of historic resources are typically considered significant impacts. Because demolition of the buildings within the project would require approval from the City of Fontana as part of the proposed project, CEQA eligibility criteria were used to evaluate the historic buildings. Therefore, criteria for listing on the CRHR were used to measure the significance of the resources. Integrity Evaluation When evaluating a historic resource, integrity is the authenticity of the resource’s physical identity clearly indicated by the retention of characteristics that existed during its period of construction. It is important to note that integrity is not the same as condition. Integrity directly relates to the presence or absence of historic materials and character-defining features, while condition relates to the relative state of physical deterioration of the resource. In most instances, integrity is more relevant to the significance of a resource than condition; however, if a resource is in such poor condition that original materials and features may no longer be salvageable, then the resource’s integrity may be adversely impacted. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–84 In order to determine whether or not the buildings are eligible for listing, CRHR eligibility criteria were used. Furthermore, BFSA based the review upon the recommended criteria listed in the National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). This review is based upon the evaluation of integrity of the buildings followed by the assessment of distinctive characteristics. 1. Integrity of Location [refers to] the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of location was assessed by reviewing historical records and aerial photographs in order to determine if the buildings had always existed at their present locations or if they had been moved, rebuilt, or their footprints significantly altered. Historical research revealed that all nine historic buildings located within the project were constructed in their current locations between 1923 and 1966, and therefore, retain integrity of location. 2. Integrity of Design [refers to] the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of design was assessed by evaluating the spatial arrangement of the buildings and any architectural features present. a. Site Temp-1 (10349 Oleander Avenue): The 10349 Oleander Avenue single- family residence was constructed in 1923 in an unknown architectural style. It currently exhibits characteristics of the Craftsman style, but these features do not appear to be original. The changes made to the building since its initial construction include: construction of a front-gabled front porch with Mediterranean-style influences; replacement of the original shingles; replacement of original windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows; and construction of rear additions that increased the square footage of the building over 100 percent. Because the original form, plan, space, structure, and style of the property have not been retained, and the building no longer conveys the appearance of a 1923 residence of any style, the 10349 Oleander Avenue building does not retain integrity of design. b. Site Temp-2 (10367 Oleander Avenue): The 10367 Oleander Avenue building was constructed in 1946 as a Contemporary-style, single-family residence. The changes made to the building since its initial construction include: construction of an addition on the primary façade that changed the footprint of the building from “L”-shaped to rectangular; relocation of the front entry and installation of non-original double doors; and replacement of all original windows. Because Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–85 the original form, plan, space, structure, and style of the property have not been retained, and the northern half of the primary façade is not original, the 10367 Oleander Avenue building does not retain integrity of design. c. Site Temp-3 (10375 Oleander Avenue): The 10375 Oleander Avenue building was constructed in 1950 as a Minimal Traditional-style, single-family residence. As evidenced by the 1953 aerial photograph (see Plate 3.3–5), the building originally featured a simple square footprint. The changes made to the building since its initial construction include: construction of a carport onto the west façade; construction of a side-gabled addition onto the western end of the south façade; infilling of the area between the original structure and the side- gabled addition with a covered patio; replacement of some original exterior cladding with T1-11 siding; and replacement of original windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows. Because the original form, plan, space, structure, and style of the property have not been retained, the 10375 Oleander Avenue building does not retain integrity of design. d. Site Temp-4 (10475 Oleander Avenue): The 10475 Oleander Avenue building was constructed in 1966 as a Ranch-style, single-family residence with an attached garage. Modifications made to the building since its initial construction include replacement of all original windows with vinyl-framed, horizontal-sliding windows and replacement of the original garage door. These modifications did not alter the original form, plan, space, structure, or style of the property and, as such, the 10475 Oleander Avenue building retains integrity of design. e. Site Temp-5 (16310 Boyle Avenue): The 16310 Boyle Avenue building was constructed in 1945, likely in the Transitional Ranch style. Modifications made to the building since its initial construction include replacement of all original windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows and replacement of the original garage door. These modifications did not alter the original form, plan, space, structure, or style of the property and, as such, the 16310 Boyle Avenue building retains integrity of design. f. Site Temp-6 (16321 Boyle Avenue): The 16321 Boyle Avenue single-family residence was constructed in 1926, likely in the Craftsman architectural style. Modifications made to the building since its initial construction include: construction of a gabled addition onto the east façade of the building and a shed- roofed addition onto the south façade; replacement of all original wood-framed, Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–86 double-hung windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows in different sized openings; and replacement of the original detached garage. As these modifications altered the original form, plan, space, structure, and style of the property, the 16321 Boyle Avenue building does not retain integrity of design. g. Site Temp-7 (16326 Boyle Avenue): The 16326 Boyle Avenue property consists of two historic residences constructed in 1930 and between 1962 and 1966, as well a non-historic manufactured home constructed between 1977 and 1985. The 1930 residence was constructed in an unknown style as a simple, side-gabled residence with a moderate eave overhang. Modifications made to the building since its construction include: a front-gabled addition built onto the western portion of the north façade; construction of a gabled roof over the front porch; replacement of all original windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal- sliding windows with snap-on muntins; the addition of thick wood trim and windowsills to each window; restuccoing with a heavier texture; and replacement of the rolled roofing present in 2006 with composite shingles. As these modifications altered the original form, plan, space, structure, and style of the property, the 1930 building at 16326 Boyle Avenue does not retain integrity of design. The 1962 to 1966 residence was constructed as a simple, side-gabled, Ranch- style building. Modifications made to the building since its initial construction include replacement of all original windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows and the addition of thick wood trim and windowsills to each window. These modifications did not alter the original form, plan, space, structure, or style of the property and, as such, the 1962 to 1966 building at 16326 Boyle Avenue retains integrity of design. h. Site Temp-8 (16398 Boyle Avenue): The 16398 Boyle Avenue building was constructed in 1930 as a simple, side-gabled, single-family residence in an unknown style. Modifications made to the building since its initial construction include: construction of a shed-roofed addition on the north façade; replacement of all original windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding versions; removal of wainscoting and window trim; and construction of an uncovered concrete porch with steps, a ramp, and a wood railing on the primary (south) façade. As these modifications altered the original form, plan, space, structure, and style of the property through the introduction of additional square footage and removal of stylistic elements, the 16398 Boyle Avenue building does not Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–87 retain integrity of design. 3. Integrity of Setting [refers to] the physical environment of a historic property. Setting includes elements such as topographic features, open space, viewshed, landscape, vegetation, and artificial features (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of setting was assessed by inspecting the elements of the property, which include topographic features, open space, views, landscape, vegetation, man-made features, and relationships between buildings and other features. The historic buildings located within the boundaries of the project were constructed between 1923 and 1966. During that time, the surrounding area consisted of small, rural ranches. Aerial photographs indicate that the surrounding neighborhood began to change circa the 1990s, when much of the agricultural land was replaced with small-scale industrial storage facilities. Much of the ground was cleared and covered with gravel and industrial structures were added to several of the larger parcels. Currently, the surrounding area consists of a scatter of original residences, modern residences, small commercial or industrial structures, and storage lots. Because the area is no longer recognizable as a rural farming community and no longer retains the same open space, viewshed, landscape, vegetation, or general built environment, the property does not retain integrity of setting. 4. Integrity of Materials [refers to] the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of materials was assessed by determining the presence or absence of original building materials, as well as the possible introduction of materials that may have altered the architectural design of the buildings. a. Site Temp-1 (10349 Oleander Avenue): The 10349 Oleander Avenue single- family residence was constructed in 1923 in an unknown architectural style. It currently exhibits characteristics of the Craftsman style, but these features do not appear to be original. The changes made to the building since its initial construction include: construction of a front-gabled front porch with Mediterranean-style influences; replacement of the original shingles; replacement of original windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows; and construction of rear additions that increased the square footage of the building over 100 percent. Because many of the original building materials were masked or removed and new materials were used in the modification of the front porch, roof, windows, and additions, the 10349 Oleander Avenue building does not retain integrity of materials. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–88 b. Site Temp-2 (10367 Oleander Avenue): The 10367 Oleander Avenue building was constructed in 1946 as a Contemporary-style, single-family residence. The changes made to the building since its initial construction include: construction of an addition on the primary façade that changed the footprint of the building from “L”-shaped to rectangular; relocation of the front entry and installation of non-original double doors; and replacement of all original windows. Because many of the original building materials were masked or removed and new materials were used in the modification the roof, windows, and primary façade addition, the 10367 Oleander Avenue building does not retain integrity of materials. c. Site Temp-3 (10375 Oleander Avenue): The 10375 Oleander Avenue building was constructed in 1950 as a Minimal Traditional-style, single-family residence. As evidenced by the 1953 aerial photograph (see Plate 3.3–5), the building originally featured a simple square footprint. The changes made to the building since its initial construction include construction of a carport onto the west façade; construction of a side-gabled addition onto the western end of the south façade; infilling of the area between the original structure and the side- gabled addition with a covered patio; replacement of some original exterior cladding with T1-11 siding; and replacement of original windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows. Because many of the original building materials were masked or removed and new materials were used in the modification of the additions, the covered patio, the exterior cladding, and the windows, the 10375 Oleander Avenue building does not retain integrity of materials. d. Site Temp-4 (10475 Oleander Avenue): The 10475 Oleander Avenue building was constructed in 1966 as a Ranch-style, single-family residence with an attached garage. Modifications made to the building since its initial construction include replacement of all original windows with vinyl-framed, horizontal-sliding windows and replacement of the original garage door. Due to the replacement of the original windows and garage door, the 10475 Oleander Avenue building does not retain integrity of materials. e. Site Temp-5 (16310 Boyle Avenue): The 16310 Boyle Avenue single-family residence was constructed in 1945, likely in the Transitional Ranch style. Modifications made to the building since its initial construction include replacement of all original windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows and replacement of the original garage door. Due to the replacement Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–89 of the original windows and garage door, the 16310 Boyle Avenue building does not retain integrity of materials. f. Site Temp-6 (16321 Boyle Avenue): The 16321 Boyle Avenue single-family residence was constructed in 1926, likely in the Craftsman architectural style. Modifications made to the building since its initial construction include: construction of a gabled addition onto the east façade of the building and a shed- roofed addition onto the south façade; replacement of all original wood-framed, double-hung windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows in different sized openings; and replacement of the original detached garage. Because many of the original building materials were masked or removed and new materials were used in the additions, modification of the windows, and replacement of the original garage, the 16321 Boyle Avenue building does not retain integrity of materials. g. Site Temp-7 (16326 Boyle Avenue): The 16326 Boyle Avenue property consists of two historic residences constructed in 1930 and between 1962 and 1966, as well as a non-historic residence constructed between 1977 and 1985. The 1930 residence was constructed in an unknown style as a simple, side- gabled residence with a moderate eave overhang. Modifications made to the building since its construction include: a front-gabled addition built onto the western portion of the north façade; construction of a gabled roof over the front porch; replacement of all original windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal- sliding windows with snap-on muntins; the addition of thick wood trim and windowsills to each window; restuccoing with a heavier texture; and replacement of the rolled roofing present in 2006 with composite shingles. Because many of the original building materials were masked or removed and new materials were used in the modification of the front porch and windows and the construction of additions, the 1930 building at 16326 Boyle Avenue does not retain integrity of materials The 1962 to 1966 residence was constructed as a simple, side-gabled, Ranch- style building. Modifications made to the building since its initial construction include replacement of all original windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows and the addition of thick wood trim and windowsills to each window. Due to the replacement of the original windows and addition of trim and windowsills, the 1962 to 1966 building at 16326 Boyle Avenue does not retain integrity of materials. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–90 h. Site Temp-8 (16398 Boyle Avenue): The 16398 Boyle Avenue building was constructed in 1930 as a simple, side-gabled, single-family residence in an unknown style. Modifications made to the building since its initial construction include: construction of a shed-roofed addition on the north façade; replacement of all original windows with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding versions; removal of wainscoting and window trim; and construction of an uncovered concrete porch with steps, a ramp, and a wood railing on the primary (south) façade. Because many of the original building materials were masked or removed and new materials were used in the construction of the additions and the modifications to the windows, exterior stylistic elements, and front porch, the 16398 Boyle Avenue building does not retain integrity of materials. 5. Integrity of Workmanship [refers to] the physical evidence of the labor and skill of a particular culture or people during any given period in history (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of workmanship was assessed by evaluating the quality of the architectural features present in the buildings. The original workmanship demonstrated by the construction of all of the historic buildings within the project appears to have been average. All of the buildings have been substantially modified since their initial construction and none exhibit elements or features representative of the labor or skill of a particular culture or people. Therefore, none of the buildings have ever possessed integrity of workmanship. 6. Integrity of Feeling [refers to] a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of feeling was assessed by evaluating whether or not the resources’ features, in combination with their setting, conveyed a historic sense of the property during the period of construction. As noted previously, the integrity of setting for all of the buildings has been lost. In addition, the modifications made to the buildings and surroundings since their original construction negatively impacted their ability to convey their historic dates of construction. Therefore, none of the buildings retain integrity of feeling. 7. Integrity of Association [refers to] the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property (Andrus and Shrimpton 2002). Integrity of association was assessed by evaluating the resources’ data or information and their ability to answer any research questions relevant to the history of the Fontana area or the state of California. Historical research indicates that none of the buildings are associated with any significant persons or events. None of the individuals who owned or lived in the buildings were found to be significant and no known important events occurred at the property. Therefore, the buildings have never possessed integrity of Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–91 association. Within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project, sites Temp-1, Temp-2, Temp-3, Temp-6, Temp-7, and Temp-8 were determined to only retain integrity of location. Sites Temp-4 and Temp-5 were determined to retain integrity of location and design. None of the sites retain integrity of setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. CRHR Evaluation For a historic resource to be eligible for listing on the CRHR, the resource must be found significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following criteria: • CRHR Criterion 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. It was discovered through historical research that no significant events could be associated with the buildings located within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project. Because the property could not be associated with any specific historic event, the buildings are not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 1. • CRHR Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. Historical research revealed that the buildings located within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project are not associated with any persons important in our past. Therefore, the buildings are not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 2. • CRHR Criterion 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic values. o Site Temp-1 (10349 Oleander Avenue): The 10349 Oleander Avenue single- family residence was constructed in 1923 in an unknown architectural style. It currently exhibits characteristics of the Craftsman style, but these features do not appear to be original. The Craftsman architectural style was the dominant style for smaller houses built throughout the country from approximately 1905 to the early 1920s. Originating in southern California, the style quickly spread throughout the country via pattern books and popular magazines (McAlester Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–92 2015): Craftsman houses were inspired primarily by the work of two California brothers – Charles Sumner Greene and Henry Mather Greene – who practiced together in Pasadena from 1893 to 1914. About 1903 they began to design simple Craftsman-type bungalows; by 1909 they had designed and executed several exceptional landmark examples that have been called the “ultimate bungalows.” Several influences – the English Arts and Crafts movement, an interest in oriental wooden architecture, and their early training in the manual arts – appear to have led the Greenes to design and build these intricately detailed buildings. These and similar residences were given extensive publicity in such magazines as the Western Architect, The Architect, House Beautiful, Good Housekeeping, Architectural Record, Country Life in America, and Ladies’ Home Journal, thus familiarizing the rest of the nation with the style. As a result, a flood of pattern books appeared, offering plans for Craftsman bungalows, some even offered completely pre-cut packages of lumber and detailing to be assembled by local labor. Through these vehicles, the one-story Craftsman house quickly became the most popular and fashionable smaller house in the country. High-style interpretations are rare except in California, where they have been called the Western Stick style. One-story vernacular examples are often called simply bungalows or the Bungaloid style. (McAlester 2015:568–578) The general Craftsman style usually features a low-pitched, gabled roof with wide, unenclosed, overhanging eaves with multiple roof planes. Sometimes, examples of this style also possess a hipped roof. The roof rafters of both roof styles are generally exposed, with decorative beams and knee braces added under the gables. Examples of the Craftsman style almost always exhibit a porch on the front façade that can either be full- or partial-width, the roof of which is supported by tapered, square columns that extend to ground level without break. Many examples use natural materials such as cobblestones, clinker brick, wood shingles, and boulders, which are often used in combination with clapboard siding or stucco (McAlester 2015). In many cases, the line between the natural landscape and the beginnings of the structure is blurred in the more elaborate examples of the style. This is achieved through the use of Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–93 natural materials and integrated landscaping. More simple, modest variations use the same materials but combine them in a much more restrained fashion. The home is given a natural, airy feeling through the use of large numbers of windows that vary in size and shape. Foundations are often sloped and walls are clad with shingles, stucco, or shiplap siding. Often, brick and stone are used on chimneys, foundations, and as decorative elements (Crawford 2006). Although the 10349 Oleander Avenue building does possess a low-pitched, gabled roof with wide, overhanging eaves, the eaves have been enclosed with fascia boards and it does not possess exposed beams or triangular knee braces typical of the Craftsman style. While the building possesses a partial-length front porch, it is not original and the supports themselves are Greek Revival in style, set atop a Mediterranean-style base. The building also does not utilize any natural materials such as cobblestones, clinker brick, wood shingles, or boulders in combination with the clapboard siding and stucco. Because none of these materials were utilized in the construction of the building and it does not have integrated landscaping, the line between the natural landscape and the building is not blurred. While the residence does possess some Craftsman characteristics, it does not possess enough to be considered a good example of the style. As such, the building does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction. In addition, all original wood-framed windows have been replaced with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows, and numerous additions have been constructed off the east façade of the building. All of these modifications have negatively affected the building’s integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. Therefore, the building is not considered architecturally significant, was not constructed using indigenous materials, is not a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, and is not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3. o Site Temp-2 (10367 Oleander Avenue): The 10367 Oleander Avenue building was constructed in 1946 as a Contemporary-style, single-family residence. Contemporary-style buildings generally have exposed roof beams, are built of natural materials (stone, wood, brick, or concrete block), feature a broad expanse of uninterrupted wall surface typically on the front façade, have a recessed or obscured entry door, and are asymmetrical (McAlester 2015). The Contemporary style was most popular between circa 1945 and 1990: Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–94 The Contemporary style was favored by most American architects from about 1945 to 1965, when it filled architectural journals and dominated awards. While Ranch-style houses proliferated in most builder subdivisions, a few successful developers built Contemporary subdivisions … In the late 1960s the Contemporary style began to lose popularity (McAlester 2015:632) Identifying features of the Contemporary style, as provided by McAlester (2015) include: Low-pitched gabled roof (sometimes flat) with widely overhanging eaves; roof beams commonly exposed; windows generally present in gable ends (or just below roof line in non- gabled facades); built with natural materials (wood, stone, brick, or occasionally concrete block); broad expanse of uninterrupted wall surface typically on front façade; entry door may be recessed or obscured; asymmetrical. (McAlester 2015:629) The 10367 Oleander Avenue residence only possesses two of the seven features listed above: low-pitched roof with widely overhanging eaves and asymmetrical façade. In addition to the identifying features listed above, McAlester (2015) also distinguishes between five principal subtypes of the Contemporary architectural style, including Front-Gabled Roof, Side-Gabled Roof, Gabled-Roof Variations, Flat Roof, and Butterfly and Slant Roof. The 10367 Oleander Avenue residence is best classified as the Front-Gabled Roof subtype. McAlester (2015:629) states: This subtype includes a broad range of simple front-gabled forms. These are ideal for showing off triangular gable-end windows that indicate a high “vaulted” ceiling inside. Two variations are common: a broad one-story form with a very low- pitched roof (popularized by California developer Joseph Eichler) and an asymmetrical gable front often found on Split- Level houses (nicknamed the “wounded dove”). Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–95 While the 10367 Oleander Avenue residence does possess a “very low-pitched roof,” the building does not exhibit a broad form, and the northern portion of the primary façade is not original to the building. Although built within the circa 1945 to 1990 period of significance for Contemporary-style buildings, the 10367 Oleander Avenue residence only possesses two of the seven character-defining features associated with the Contemporary style, and therefore, it is not considered a representative example of a type (Contemporary architecture). In addition, although it possesses characteristics of the Front-Gabled Roof subtype, which is associated with California, the northern portion of the front (primary) façade of the building is not original. As such, the building is not representative of a region (California). The method of construction is not unique, does not use indigenous materials, and the building is not known to have been designed or built by an important creative individual. Therefore, the 10367 Oleander Avenue building is not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3. o Site Temp-3 (10375 Slover Avenue): The 10375 Oleander Avenue building was constructed in 1950 as a Minimal Traditional-style, single-family residence. The Minimal Traditional house was “the little house that could.” It was the small house that could be built with [Federal Housing Administration] FHA-insured loans in the midst of the Great Depression between 1935 and 1940; the house that could be built quickly to accommodate millions of relocating World War II production-plant workers (1941-1945); and the house that could be built rapidly during the late 1940s in large post-World War II developments (1946-1949). These late-1940s developments were necessary to begin to fulfill the wartime GI Bill promise that every returning serviceman would be able to purchase a home. (McAlester 2015:588) Identifying features of the Minimal Traditional style, as provided by McAlester (2015) include: Low- or intermediate-pitched roof, more often gabled; small house, generally one story in height; roof eaves usually have little or no overhang; double-hung windows, typically multi- Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–96 pane or 1/1; minimal amounts of added architectural detail; rarely has dormers. (McAlester 2015:587) The 10375 Oleander Avenue building was constructed at the end of the circa 1935 to 1950 period of significance for Minimal Traditional-style buildings and originally possessed all six features listed above. However, the carport, side- gabled and covered porch additions, and the replacement of the original windows negatively impacted the residence’s integrity of design, materials, feeling, and workmanship. Although the building was likely originally representative of a type (Minimal Traditional architecture) and period (circa 1935 to 1950), the subsequent modifications negatively impacted its original integrity. In addition, as the Minimal Traditional style was popular across the United States and the building was not constructed using any unique construction techniques, the 10375 Oleander Avenue building is also not representative of a region (southern California) or method of construction, was not constructed using indigenous materials, and is not known to have been designed or built by an important creative individual. Therefore, the 10375 Oleander Avenue building is not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3. • Site Temp-4 (10475 Oleander Avenue): The 10475 Oleander Avenue building was constructed in 1966 as a Ranch-style, single-family residence with an attached garage. The Ranch style originated in southern California in the mid- 1930s, after a few earlier precursors … During the decades of the 1950s and 1960s it became by far the most popular house style built throughout the country. Often located in large subdivisions, post-World War II Ranch-house suburbs form a dominant part of many American cities – particularly those that grew in the postwar Sunbelt Boom of the 1950s and 1960s, such as Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Atlanta. (McAlester 2015:602) Identifying features of the Ranch style, as provided by McAlester (2015) include: Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–97 Broad one-story shape; usually built low to ground; low-pitched roof without dormers; commonly with moderate-to-wide roof overhang; front entry usually located off-center and sheltered under main roof of house; garage typically attached to main façade (faces front, side, or rear); large picture window generally present; asymmetrical façade. (McAlester 2015:597) The 10475 Oleander Avenue residence possesses all seven features listed above. In addition to the identifying features listed above, McAlester (2015) also distinguishes between four principal subtypes of the Ranch architectural style, including Hipped Roof, Cross-Hipped Roof, Side-Gabled Roof, and Cross- Gabled Roof. The 10475 Oleander Avenue residence is best classified as the Cross-Hipped Roof subtype. McAlester (2015:597–598) states: About 40 percent of one-story Ranch houses have a cross-hipped roof. Typically these are one-story houses with a long roof ridge running parallel to the front façade with a single hipped extension. Occasionally a second hipped extension is also present. Sometimes the cross-gabled and cross-hipped types have a combination roof with a front hip on a side-gabled roof or, conversely, a front-facing gable on a hipped roof. While the 10475 Oleander Avenue residence does possess a cross-hipped roof, it also features “a front-facing gable on a hipped roof.” Although the building was originally representative of a type (Ranch architecture) and period (1935 to 1975), the subsequent modifications to the structure and the surrounding area have negatively impacted its original integrity of setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling. In addition, as the Ranch style was popular across the United States and the building was not constructed using any unique construction techniques, the 10475 Oleander Avenue building is also not representative of a region (southern California) or method of construction, was not constructed using indigenous materials, is not known to have been designed or built by an important creative individual, and has never possessed integrity of association. Therefore, due to a lack of original integrity, the 10475 Oleander Avenue building is not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–98 o Site Temp-5 (16310 Boyle Avenue): The 16310 Boyle Avenue building was constructed in 1945, likely in the Transitional Ranch style, during the circa 1935 to 1975 period during which the Ranch style was most popular: The Ranch style originated in southern California in the mid- 1930s, after a few earlier precursors … During the decades of the 1950s and 1960s it became by far the most popular house style built throughout the country. Often located in large subdivisions, post-World War II Ranch-house suburbs form a dominant part of many American cities – particularly those that grew in the postwar Sunbelt Boom of the 1950s and 1960s, such as Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Atlanta. (McAlester 2015) Identifying features of the Ranch style, as provided by McAlester (2015) include: Broad one-story shape; usually built low to ground; low-pitched roof without dormers; commonly with moderate-to-wide roof overhang; front entry usually located off-center and sheltered under main roof of house; garage typically attached to main façade (faces front, side, or rear); large picture window generally present; asymmetrical façade. (McAlester 2015:597) The 16310 Boyle Avenue residence only possesses three of the seven features listed above: built low to the ground; low-pitched roof without dormers; and moderate eave overhang. In addition to the identifying features listed above, McAlester (2015) also distinguishes between four principal subtypes of the Ranch architectural style, including Hipped Roof, Cross-Hipped Roof, Side-Gabled Roof, and Cross- Gabled Roof. The 16310 Boyle Avenue residence is best classified as the Cross-Gabled Roof subtype. McAlester (2015:598) states that “about 40 percent of one-story Ranch houses have a broad side-gabled form, with a long roof ridge parallel to the street, and a single-prominent, front facing gable extension.” While the 16310 Boyle Avenue residence does resemble this form in the way the gables are oriented, the building does not possess the “broad one- story shape” with a “front facing gable extension.” Rather, the gable is rear- facing. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–99 Because the building does not have a wide eave overhang or large picture window, but is cross-gabled, it more closely resembles a Transitional Ranch- style residence. According to McAlester (2015): Early, small examples of the Ranch [style] are sometimes called Ranchette, Minimal Ranch, or Transitional Ranch. These generally lack the broader overhang of later examples and many of the elaborations that become common as house size increased. The line between Minimal Traditional and Ranchette is a matter of judgement. However, the intent was likely a Ranch house if a picture window and other Ranch elaboration is present (such as a corner window or wall cladding that differs at the base of the windows). While Ranch houses commonly have a broader profile than Minimal Traditionals, neighborhoods platted with narrow lots before World War II may have Ranch-style houses adapted to these lots … During the 1940s, it [the Ranch-style home] was only one of the small house types built under FHA guidelines. As the financial controls that mandated very small houses were gradually lifted following World War II, the Ranch style began to gain in popularity … The size of a Ranch [home] was quite small in the late 1940s, but the typical size gradually increased as builders actively lobbied for higher loan limits and FHA guidelines were revised upward. (McAlester 2015) Although built within the 1935 to 1975 period of significance for Ranch-style buildings, the 16310 Boyle Avenue residence only possesses three of the seven character-defining features associated with the Ranch style, and therefore, it is not considered a representative example of a type (Ranch architecture). Further, while Transitional Ranch-style residences, which are associated with FHA guidelines for small houses, were primarily constructed prior to or during World War II, the 16310 Boyle Avenue residence was constructed in 1945 and the Peirsons are not known to have received any FHA funds for its construction. The building was, however, constructed on a narrow lot, which likely accounts for its lack of a broad footprint. Regardless, the building is not representative of a period (World War II) due the fact that the Peirsons already owned Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–100 residences on neighboring parcels. As the Ranch architectural style was popular across the United States and the residence was not built using any unique construction techniques specific to southern California, the 16310 Boyle Avenue residence is also not representative of a region (southern California) or method of construction and was likely designed and built by Byron Peirson, who is not known to have been an important creative individual. Therefore, the 16310 Boyle Avenue building is not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3. o Site Temp-6 (16321 Boyle Avenue): The 16321 Boyle Avenue single-family residence was constructed in 1926, likely in the Craftsman architectural style. As stated previously, the Craftsman style was the dominant style for smaller houses built throughout the country from approximately 1905 to the early 1920s. Originating in southern California, the style quickly spread throughout the country via pattern books and popular magazines (McAlester 2015): Craftsman houses were inspired primarily by the work of two California brothers – Charles Sumner Greene and Henry Mather Greene – who practiced together in Pasadena from 1893 to 1914. About 1903 they began to design simple Craftsman-type bungalows; by 1909 they had designed and executed several exceptional landmark examples that have been called the “ultimate bungalows.” Several influences – the English Arts and Crafts movement, an interest in oriental wooden architecture, and their early training in the manual arts – appear to have led the Greenes to design and build these intricately detailed buildings. These and similar residences were given extensive publicity in such magazines as the Western Architect, The Architect, House Beautiful, Good Housekeeping, Architectural Record, Country Life in America, and Ladies’ Home Journal, thus familiarizing the rest of the nation with the style. As a result, a flood of pattern books appeared, offering plans for Craftsman bungalows, some even offered completely pre-cut packages of lumber and detailing to be assembled by local labor. Through these vehicles, the one-story Craftsman house quickly became the most popular and fashionable smaller house in the country. High-style interpretations are rare except in California, where they have been called the Western Stick style. One-story vernacular examples are often called simply bungalows or the Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–101 Bungaloid style. (McAlester 2015:568–578) The general Craftsman style usually features a low-pitched, gabled roof with wide, unenclosed, overhanging eaves with multiple roof planes. Sometimes, examples of this style also possess a hipped roof. The roof rafters of both roof styles are generally exposed, with decorative beams and knee braces added under the gables. Examples of the Craftsman style almost always exhibit a porch on the front façade that can either be full- or partial-width, the roof of which is supported by tapered, square columns that extend to ground level without break. Many examples use natural materials such as cobblestones, clinker brick, wood shingles, and boulders, which are often used in combination with clapboard siding or stucco (McAlester 2015). In many cases, the line between the natural landscape and the beginnings of the structure is blurred in the more elaborate examples of the style. This is achieved through the use of natural materials and integrated landscaping. More simple, modest variations use the same materials but combine them in a much more restrained fashion. The home is given a natural, airy feeling through the use of large numbers of windows that vary in size and shape. Foundations are often sloped and walls are clad with shingles, stucco, or shiplap siding. Often, brick and stone are used on chimneys, foundations, and as decorative elements (Crawford 2006). Although the 16321 Boyle Avenue building does possess a low-pitched, gabled roof with wide, overhanging eaves and multiple roof planes, it also possesses a shed-style roof on the southern half of the building, and the eastern gable is not original. In addition, the roof does not possess exposed beams or triangular knee braces typical of the Craftsman style. While the building possesses a partial-length front porch, it is located under the main roof of the building rather than extending forward from the primary façade and does not feature tapered columns, as is customary in Craftsman-style residences. The building also does not utilize any natural materials such as cobblestones, clinker brick, wood shingles, or boulders in combination with the stucco and does not feature a battered foundation. Because none of these materials were utilized in the construction of the building and it does not have integrated landscaping, the line between the natural landscape and the building is not blurred. While the residence does possess some Craftsman characteristics, it does not possess enough to be considered a good example of the style. As such, the building does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–102 or method of construction. In addition, all original wood-framed windows have been replaced with aluminum-framed, horizontal-sliding windows in different- sized openings, and additions have been constructed off the east and south façades. All of these modifications have negatively affected the building’s integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. Therefore, the building is not considered architecturally significant, was not constructed using indigenous materials, is not a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, and is not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3. o Site Temp-7 (16326 Boyle Avenue): The 16326 Boyle Avenue property consists of two historic residences constructed in 1930 and between 1962 and 1966, as well as a non-historic manufactured home constructed between 1977 and 1985. The 1930 residence was constructed in an unknown style as a simple, side-gabled residence with a moderate eave overhang. Due to the numerous modifications that have occurred to the building since its construction in 1930, the original architectural style of the building is unknown, and it currently does not resemble any specific style (see integrity analysis above). As such, the building does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction. In addition, a front-gabled addition was built onto the western portion of the north façade; a gabled roof was added over the front porch; all original windows were replaced with aluminum-framed, horizontal- sliding windows with snap-on muntins; thick wood trim and window sills were added to each window; the building was restuccoed with a heavier texture stucco; and the original roofing was replaced with composite shingles. All of these modifications have negatively affected the building’s integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. Therefore, the 1930 building at 16326 Boyle Avenue is not considered architecturally significant, was not constructed using indigenous materials, is not a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, and is not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3. The 1962 to 1966 building at 16326 Boyle Avenue was constructed as a simple, side-gabled, Ranch-style, single-family residence. As stated previously, identifying features of the Ranch style, as provided by McAlester (2015) include: Broad one-story shape; usually built low to ground; low-pitched roof without dormers; commonly with moderate-to-wide roof Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–103 overhang; front entry usually located off-center and sheltered under main roof of house; garage typically attached to main façade (faces front, side, or rear); large picture window generally present; asymmetrical façade. (McAlester 2015:597) The 1962 to 1966 building at 16326 Boyle Avenue only possesses three of the seven features listed above: built low to the ground; low-pitched roof without dormers; and moderate eave overhang. In addition to the identifying features listed above, McAlester (2015) also distinguishes between four principal subtypes of the Ranch architectural style, including Hipped Roof, Cross-Hipped Roof, Side-Gabled Roof, and Cross- Gabled Roof. The residence is best classified as the Side-Gabled Roof subtype. McAlester (2015:597) states that “about 10 percent of one-story Ranch houses have side-gabled roofs with a long roof ridge running parallel to the front façade. These are more common in rural areas and in neighborhoods of smaller houses.” Although built within the 1935 to 1975 period of significance for Ranch-style buildings, the 1962 to 1966 building at 16326 Boyle Avenue only possesses three of the seven character-defining features associated with the Ranch style and, therefore, it is not considered a representative example of a type (Ranch architecture). Further, while Transitional Ranch-style residences, which are associated with FHA guidelines for small houses, were primarily constructed prior to or during World War II, the residence was constructed in the 1960s and could not have received World War II funds from the FHA for its construction. Despite having been constructed on a shared lot, which likely accounts for its lack of a broad footprint, the size of the building loses relevance if it is not associated with the transition from the Minimal Traditional style to the Ranch style. As the Ranch architectural style was popular across the United States and the residence was not built using any unique construction techniques specific to southern California, the 1962 to 1966 building at 16326 Boyle Avenue is also not representative of a region (southern California) or method of construction and is not known to have been designed or built by an important creative individual. Therefore, the 1962 to 1966 building at 16326 Boyle Avenue is not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3. o Site Temp-8 (16398 Boyle Avenue): The 16398 Boyle Avenue building was constructed in 1930 as a simple, side-gabled, single-family residence in an Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.0–104 unknown style. Although in 2006, the building possessed features that could be associated with the Minimal Traditional or Ranch styles, the building was constructed before either style was known to exist. As such, the building was not originally designed in either of those styles and later modified to have Ranch-style elements, such as the wainscot and window trim. As the building’s original architectural style is unknown, it cannot be a representative example of a type (architecture) or period. In addition, the building does not exhibit any unique construction techniques (method of construction) associated with any specific region, it does not utilize any indigenous materials, and it is not known to have been designed or built by an important creative individual. Therefore, the 16398 Boyle Avenue building is not eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 3. • CRHR Criterion 4: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The research conducted for this study revealed that because the buildings located within the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project are not associated with any significant persons or events and were not constructed using unique or innovative methods of construction, they likely cannot yield any additional information about the history of Fontana or the state of California. Therefore, none of the buildings are eligible for designation under CRHR Criterion 4. 3.4 Discussion/Summary During the field survey, nine historic buildings were identified: Temp-1 (10349 Oleander Avenue), Temp-2 (10367 Oleander Avenue), Temp-3 (10375 Oleander Avenue), Temp-4 (10475 Oleander Avenue), Temp-5 (16310 Boyle Avenue), Temp-6 (16321 Boyle Avenue), Temp-7 (16326 Boyle Avenue), and Temp-8 (16398 Boyle Avenue). No other cultural resources were observed during the survey. Sites Temp-1 to Temp-8 have been evaluated as not historically or architecturally significant under any CEQA criteria due to a lack of association with any significant persons or events and not being representative examples of any specific architectural style, period, or region. Because none of the buildings are eligible for listing on the CRHR, no mitigation measures are required for any future alterations or planned demolition of the buildings. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.0–1 4.0 INTERPRETATION OF RESOURCE IMPORTANCE AND IMPACT IDENTIFICATION 4.1 Resource Importance The cultural resources survey of the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project identified nine historic buildings. Sites Temp-1 (10349 Oleander Avenue), Temp-2 (10367 Oleander Avenue), Temp-3 (10375 Oleander Avenue), Temp-4 (10475 Oleander Avenue), Temp-5 (16310 Boyle Avenue), Temp-6 (16321 Boyle Avenue), Temp-7 (16326 Boyle Avenue), and Temp-8 (16398 Boyle Avenue) are not CEQA-significant or eligible for listing on the CRHR. The buildings have been thoroughly recorded and no additional information can be derived from further analysis. The northernmost residence at 16326 Boyle Avenue is manufactured home that was constructed between 1977 and 1985. Since the building does not meet the minimum age threshold to be considered historic, it is not considered a contributor to Site Temp-7. 4.2 Impact Identification The proposed development of the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project will include the demolition of the nine historic buildings. However, the removal of these buildings as part of the development of the property will not constitute an adverse impact because they have been evaluated as not CEQA-significant and not eligible for listing on the CRHR. The potential does still exist, however, that historic deposits may be present that are related to the occupation of this location since the 1920s. To mitigate potential impacts to unrecorded historic features or deposits, mitigation monitoring is recommended. The mitigation monitoring program is presented in Section 5.0. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.0–1 5.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS – MITIGATION MEASURES AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Mitigation Measures The proposed development will impact nine historic buildings; however, as these resources are evaluated as lacking any further research potential, impacts have been determined to be not significant. Based upon the evaluation of the buildings as lacking further research potential, mitigation measures will not be required as a condition of approval for the project; however, a MMRP is recommended because grading may expose undocumented and potentially significant historic features or deposits associated with the historic occupation of the property since the 1920s. Evidence of Native American use of this location prehistorically may also be discovered. Based upon this potential, monitoring of grading is recommended to prevent the inadvertent destruction of any potentially important cultural deposits that were not observed or detected during the current cultural resources study. The monitoring program will include Native American observers only in the event that prehistoric deposits are discovered. 5.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Slover and Cypress Avenue Project will disturb eight nonsignificant historic resources (Temp-1 to Temp-8) that do not require any mitigation measures. However, to mitigate potential impacts to resources that have not yet been detected, a MMRP is recommended as a condition of approval. In accordance with direction from the City of Fontana Planning Division, the following guidance is presented as part of the MMRP condition: • In the event that cultural resources are discovered by the archaeological or Native American monitor, all work shall be suspended 50 feet around the resource(s) and a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards shall assess the discovery. Work on the overall project may continue during this period if the following activities are initiated: o If the discovery is a prehistoric resource, initiate consultation between the qualified archaeologist, the appropriate Native American tribal entity, and the City/project applicant; o Include the appropriate Native American entity (as determined by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards) in the cultural resources investigations as soon as possible; and o If the qualified archaeologist determines the resource(s) to be a “unique archaeological resource” consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 or a “tribal cultural resource” consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21074, a Cultural Resources Management Plan shall be prepared by the project Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.0–2 archaeologist and submitted to the City Planning Division for approval and subsequent implementation. The proposed MMRP tasks are detailed below. During Grading A. Monitor(s) Shall be Present During Grading/Excavation/Trenching 1. The archaeological monitor shall be present full-time during all soil-disturbing and grading/excavation/trenching activities that could result in impacts to archaeological resources. 2. The principal investigator (PI) may submit a detailed letter to the lead agency during construction requesting a modification to the monitoring program when a field condition such as modern disturbance post-dating the previous grading/trenching activities, presence of fossil formations, or when native soils are encountered that may reduce or increase the potential for resources to be present. B. Discovery Notification Process 1. In the event of an archaeological discovery, either historic or prehistoric, the archaeological monitor shall direct the contractor to temporarily divert all soil- disturbing activities, including but not limited to, digging, trenching, excavating, or grading activities in the area of discovery and in the area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent resources and immediately notify the Native American monitor and client, as appropriate. 2. The monitor shall immediately notify the PI (unless monitor is the PI) of the discovery. C. Determination of Significance 1. The PI shall evaluate the significance of the resource. If human remains are involved, the protocol provided in Section D, below, shall be followed. a. The PI shall immediately notify the City of Fontana to discuss the significance determination and shall also submit a letter indicating whether additional mitigation is required. b. If the resource is significant, the PI shall submit an Archaeological Data Recovery Program (ADRP) and obtain written approval from the City of Fontana to implement that program. In the event that prehistoric deposits are discovered, the ADRP should also be reviewed by the Native American consultant/monitor. Impacts to significant resources must be mitigated before ground-disturbing activities in the area of discovery will be allowed to resume. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.0–3 c. If the resource is not significant, the PI shall submit a letter to the City of Fontana indicating that artifacts will be collected, curated, and documented in the final monitoring report. The letter shall also indicate that that no further work is required. D. Discovery of Human Remains If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in that area until a determination can be made regarding the provenance of the human remains; and the following procedures as set forth in CEQA Section 15064.5(e), the California PRC (Section 5097.98), and the State Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) shall be undertaken: 1. Notification a. The archaeological monitor shall notify the PI, if the monitor is not qualified as a PI. b. The PI shall notify the Coroner’s Division of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department after consultation with the City of Fontana, either in person or via telephone. 2. Isolate discovery site a. Work shall be directed away from the location of the discovery and any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent human remains until a determination can be made by the sheriff-coroner in consultation with the PI concerning the provenance of the remains. b. The sheriff-coroner, in consultation with the PI, will determine the need for a field examination to determine the provenance. c. If a field examination is not warranted, the sheriff-coroner will determine, with input from the PI, if the remains are or are most likely to be of Native American origin. 3. If Human Remains ARE determined to be Native American a. The medical examiner will notify the NAHC within 24 hours. By law, ONLY the medical examiner can make this call. b. The NAHC will immediately identify the person or persons determined to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) and provide contact information. c. The MLD will contact the PI within 24 hours or sooner after the sheriff-coroner has completed coordination to begin the consultation process in accordance Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.0–4 with CEQA Section 15064.5(e), the California PRC, and the State Health and Safety Code. d. The MLD will have 48 hours to make recommendations to the property owner or representative for the treatment or disposition with proper dignity of the human remains and associated grave goods. e. Disposition of Native American human remains will be determined between the MLD and the PI, and, if: i. The NAHC is unable to identify the MLD; OR ii. The MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the NAHC; OR iii. The landowner or authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the MLD and mediation in accordance with PRC 5097.94 (k) by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner; THEN iv. Upon the discovery of multiple Native American human remains during a ground-disturbing land development activity, the landowner may agree that additional conferral with descendants is necessary to consider culturally appropriate treatment of multiple Native American human remains. Culturally appropriate treatment of such a discovery may be ascertained from review of the site utilizing cultural and archaeological standards. Where the parties are unable to agree upon the appropriate treatment measures, the human remains and grave goods buried with the Native American human remains shall be reinterred with appropriate dignity. 4. If Human Remains are NOT Native American a. The PI shall contact the sheriff-coroner and notify them of the historic-era context of the burial. b. The sheriff-coroner will determine the appropriate course of action with the PI and city staff (PRC 5097.98). c. If the remains are of historic origin, they shall be appropriately removed and conveyed to the City of Fontana. The decision for internment of the human remains shall be made in consultation with City, the applicant/landowner, and any known descendant group. Post-Construction A. Preparation and Submittal of Draft Monitoring Report 1. The PI shall submit to the City of Fontana a draft monitoring report (even if negative) prepared in accordance with the agency guidelines, which describes Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.0–5 the results, analysis, and conclusions of all phases of the archaeological monitoring program (with appropriate graphics). a. For significant archaeological resources encountered during monitoring, the ADRP shall be included in the draft monitoring report. b. Recording sites with the State of California DPR shall be the responsibility of the PI, including the recording (on the appropriate forms-DPR 523 A/B) any significant or potentially significant resources encountered during the archaeological monitoring program. 2. The PI shall submit a revised draft monitoring report to the City of Fontana for approval, including any changes or clarifications requested by the City. B. Handling of Artifacts 1. The PI shall be responsible for ensuring that all cultural remains collected are cleaned and cataloged. 2. The PI shall be responsible for ensuring that all artifacts are analyzed to identify function and chronology as they relate to the history of the area; that faunal material is identified as to species; and that specialty studies are completed, as appropriate. 3. The cost for curation is the responsibility of the property owner. C. Curation of Artifacts 1. To be determined. D. Final Monitoring Report(s) 1. The PI shall submit the approved final monitoring report to the City of Fontana and any interested parties. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6.0–1 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED The archaeological survey program for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project was directed by Principal Investigator Brian F. Smith. The archaeological fieldwork was conducted by field archaeologist David Grabski. The report text was prepared by Jillian Conroy, Jennifer Stropes, and Brian Smith. Report graphics were provided by Jillian Conroy. Technical editing and report production were conducted by Elena Goralogia. The SCCIC at CSU Fullerton provided the archaeological records search information and the NAHC provided the SLF search results. Archival research was conducted at the BFSA research library, the Fontana Historical Society, the Fontana Public Library, and the offices of the San Bernardino Assessor/County Recorder/County Clerk. Sanborn Fire Insurance maps were searched for at the San Diego Public Library. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7.0–1 7.0 REFERENCES CITED Ancestry.com 1952 Newspaper Obituary for Mrs. Jesse Weirich. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2000 California, U.S., Death Index 1940-1997 (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2002 1930 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2004 1900 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2006 U.S., Obituary Collection, 1930-Current (database online). Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2007a Missouri, U.S., Marriage Records, 1805-2002 (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2007b Minnesota Territorial and State Censuses, 1849-1905 (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2008 Cook County, Illinois Marriage Index, 1930-1960 (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2009a 1860 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2009b 1870 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2010a U.S., Public Records Index, 1950-1993 (database online). Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2010b U.S., Naturalization Records, 1840-1957 (database online). Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2010c Cuyahoga County, Ohio, U.S., Marriage Records and Indexes, 1810-1973 (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2011a U.S., Word War II Draft Cards Young Men, 1940-1947 (database online). Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7.0–2 2011b U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995 (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2011c Web: Tacoma, Washington, U.S., Obituary Index, 1882-2015 (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2012a 1940 United States Federal Census (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2012b U.S., Find a Grave Index, 1600s-Current (database online). Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2012c Tennessee, U.S., Delayed Birth Records, 1869-1909 (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2014 California, U.S., Federal Naturalization Records, 1843-1999 (database online). Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2015 Michigan, U.S., Marriage Records, 1867-1952 (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2016a Ohio, U.S., County Marriage Records, 1774-1993 (database online). Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2016b Kentucky, U.S., County Marriage Records, 1783-1965 (database online). Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2017a California, Voter Registrations, 1900-1968 (database online). Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2017b Iowa, U.S., Births (series) 1880-1904, 1921-1944 and Delayed Births (series), 1856- 1940 (database online). Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2022a Jesse Weirich (1889-1959) Family Tree. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 2022b Caroline M. Staley Eichenberg (1899-1982) Family Tree. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. Andrus, Patrick and Rebecca H. Shrimpton 2002 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin No. 15. National Register of Historic Places. Anicic, John Charles, Jr. 1982 National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination Form, Fontana Farms Company Ranch House, Camp #1 (Pepper Street House). Fontana Historical Society. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7.0–3 Form on file at the United States Department of the Interior Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. 2005 Images of America: Fontana. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina; Chicago, Illinois; Portsmouth, New Hampshire; and San Francisco, California. Antevs, Ernst 1953 The Postpluvial or the Neothermal. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 22:9–23, Berkeley, California. Bean, Lowell John and Florence C. Shipek 1978 Luiseño. In Handbook of North American Indians (Vol. 8), California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith 1978a Gabrielino. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1978b Serrano. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Beattie, George W. and Helen P. Beattie 1939 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks, Oakland, California. Benedict, Ruth Fulton 1924 A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture. American Anthropologist 26(3). Big Bear Life 1959 Business Progress Noted. 5 August:10. Big Bear, California. Brigandi, Phil 1998 Temecula: At the Crossroads of History. Heritage Media Corporation, Encinitas, California. Caughey, John W. 1970 California, A Remarkable State’s Life History. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Chapman, Charles E. 1921 A History of California: The Spanish Period. The Macmillan Company, New York. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7.0–4 City of Fontana 2018 About the City of Fontana. Electronic document, https://www.fontana.org/255/About -The-City-of-Fontana, accessed June 11, 2018. Cohen, K.M. and P.L. Gibbard 2011 Global chronostratigraphical correlation table for the last 2.7 million years. Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (International Commission on Stratigraphy), Cambridge, England. Electronic document, http://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/wp-content/ uploads/2018/04/POSTERstratchart- v2011.jpg.pdf, accessed January 14, 2022. Cook, Sherburne F. 1976 The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. Conford, Danial (editor) 1995 Working People of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Oxford, California. Curray, Joseph R. 1965 Late Quaternary History: Continental Shelves of the United States. In Quaternary of the United States, edited by H.E. Wright Jr. and D.G. Frey, pp. 723–735. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Drucker, Philip 1937 Culture Element Distributions: V. Southern California. Anthropological Records 1(1):1–52. University of California, Berkeley. Dutcher, L.C. and A.A. Garrett 1963 Geologic and hydrologic features of the San Bernardino area, California - with special reference to underflow across the San Jacinto fault. USGS Water-Supply Paper 1419. Engelhardt, Zephyrin 1921 San Luis Rey Mission, The King of the Missions. James M. Barry Company, San Francisco, California. Erlandson, Jon M. and Roger H. Colten (editors) 1991 An Archaeological Context for Archaeological Sites on the California Coast. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 1, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Fagan, B. 1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames and Hudson. London. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7.0–5 Gallegos, Dennis 1985 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Diego State University Cultural Resource Management Casual Papers 2(1). 2002 Southern California in Transition: Late Holocene Occupation of Southern San Diego County. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry Jones. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Gunther, Jane D. 1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names. Rubidoux Printing Co., Riverside, California. Hall, William Hammond 1888 The Field, Water-Supply, and Works, Organization and Operation in San Diego, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties: The Second Part of the Report of the State Engineer of California on Irrigation and the Irrigation Question. State Office, J.D. Young, Supt. State Printing, Sacramento. Harris, Marvin 1991 Cultural Anthropology. HarperCollins Publishers Inc., New York, New York Heizer, Robert F. (editor) 1978 Trade and Trails. In California, pp. 690–693. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Inman, Douglas L. 1983 Application of Coastal Dynamics to the Reconstruction of Paleocoastlines in the Vicinity of La Jolla, California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology, edited by Patricia M. Masters and N.C. Flemming. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida. Kroeber, A.L. 1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted. Dover Editions, Dover Publications, Inc., New York. Originally published 1925, Bulletin No. 78, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Laylander, Don, Jerry Schaefer, Nick Doose, Jessica Hennessey, and Ian Scharlotta 2014 A Regional Synthesis of Prehistoric Archaeological Landscapes in the Jacumba/McCain Valley Region, San Diego and Imperial Counties, California. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management and San Diego Gas & Electric by ASM Affiliates, Carlsbad, California. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7.0–6 Martin, P.S. 1967 Prehistoric Overkill. In Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, edited by P. Martin and H.E. Wright. Yale University Press: New Haven. 1973 The Discovery of America. Science 179(4077):969–974. Masters, Patricia M. 1983 Detection and Assessment of Prehistoric Artifact Sites off the Coast of Southern California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology: Towards the Prehistory of Land Bridges and Continental Shelves, edited by P.M. Masters and N.C. Flemming, pp. 189–213. Academic Press, London. 1994 Archaeological Investigations at Five Sites on the Lower San Luis Rey River, San Diego County, California, edited by Michael Moratto, pp. A1–A19. Infotec Research, Fresno, California and Gallegos and Associates, Pacific Palisades California. McAlester, Virginia Savage 2015 A Field Guide to American Houses (Revised): The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Miller, J. 1966 The Present and Past Molluscan Faunas and Environments of Four Southern California Coastal Lagoons. Master’s thesis on file at the University of California at San Diego, San Diego, California. Minnesota Official Marriage System (MOMS) 2022 Search for a Marriage Certificate. Electronic document, https://moms.mn.gov/Search ?S=1, accessed January 18, 2022. Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Morton, D.M. 2003 Preliminary geologic map of the Fontana 7.5' Quadrangle, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, Version 1.0: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-418, scale 1:24,000. Morton, D.M. and F.K. Miller 2006 Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 06-1217, scale 1:100,000. Moss, M.L. and J. Erlandson 1995 Reflections on North American Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 9(1):1– 46. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7.0–7 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2019 Web Soil Survey. Electronic document, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/ App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed March 22, 2021. Office of Historic Preservation 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California. Patterson, Tom 1971 A Colony for California: Riverside’s First Hundred Years. Press-Enterprise, Riverside, California. Pourade, Richard F. 1961 Time of the Bells. The History of San Diego Volume 2. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, California. 1963 The Silver Dons. The History of San Diego Volume 3. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, California. Ravalli Republic 2012 Hye L. McCall II. 31 October:2. Hamilton, Montana. Reddy, Seetha 2000 Settling the Highlands: Late Holocene Highland Adaptations on Camp Pendleton, San Diego County California. Prepared for the Army Corps of Engineers by ASM Affiliates. Unpublished report on file at South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Rogers, Malcolm J. 1929 Field Notes, 1929 San Diego-Smithsonian Expedition. Manuscript on file at San Diego Museum of Man. Rolle, Andrew F. 1969 California: A History (Second Edition). Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York. San Bernardino County Sun 1938a Erdman Grikscheit. 1 July:23. San Bernardino, California. 1938b Waldo Willhoft, Attorney, Notice to Creditors No. 12773. 17 September:7. San Bernardino, California. 1938c Anna Grikscheit. 19 April:23. San Bernardino, California. 1941 Mrs. Clara Lulu Cannon. 16 April:12. San Bernardino, California. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7.0–8 1943 Harry DeWeese. 18 October:4. San Bernardino, California. 1946 DeWeese. 31 March:12. San Bernardino, California. 1947a Council Approves Hiring of Firemen. 22 January:16. San Bernardino, California. 1947b DeWeese. 21 September:16. San Bernardino, California. 1949 Patrick Cannon. 5 August:38. San Bernardino, California. 1953 Ralph C. Swanson Dies in Long Beach Veterans Hospital. 17 December:17. San Bernardino, California. 1956a Obituary: Hunt. 9 January:11. San Bernardino, California. 1956b William K. Agan. 31 May:42. San Bernardino, California. 1963 Real Estate—Fontana. 12 November:32. San Bernardino, California. 1964 Train-Auto Crash Kills Loma Lindan. 24 April:15. San Bernardino, California. 1966 Marion C. Waddell. 27 July:22. San Bernardino, California. 1971 Cottage, 2 bdrm. 1 December:49. San Bernardino, California. 1972a Sam S. Lampela, Bloomington. 20 March:20. San Bernardino, California. 1972b COTTAGE. Cooler. 7 August:28. San Bernardino, California. 1986 J.W. ‘Joe’ Collins. 1 November:20. San Bernardino, California. 1994 Charles S. Zafuto Sr. 29 May:244. San Bernardino, California. San Diego Union 1949 Patrick Cannon. 5 August:17. San Diego, California. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. Strong, William Duncan 1971 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. Reprint of 1929 Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology No. 26, University of California, Berkeley. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7.0–9 The Missoulian 2008 Betty Lou McCall. 27 March:15. Missoula, Montana. The News Tribune 2017 Ellen Bay. 7 June:A2. Tacoma, Washington. The Sandusky Register 1959 Jesse Weirich. 7 March:13. Sandusky, Ohio. University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections 2018 Pope & Talbot records, circa 1849-1975. Electronic file, http://archiveswest.orbis cascade.org/ark:/80444/xv14450/pdf, accessed February 26, 2019. Van Devender, T.R. and W.G. Spaulding 1979 Development of Vegetation and Climate in the Southwestern United States. Science 204:701–710. Warren, Claude N. and M.G. Pavesic 1963 Shell Midden Analysis of Site SDI-603 and Ecological Implications for Cultural Development of Batequitos Lagoon, San Diego County, Los Angeles. University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1960-1961:246–338. Wirths, Todd A. 2022 Paleontological Assessment for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Unpublished report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., Poway, California. World Forestry Center 2017 Andrew Jackson Pope (1820-1978). Electronic document, https://www.worldforestry .org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/POPE-ANDREW-JACKSON.pdf, accessed February 26, 2019. Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX A Resumes of Key Personnel Brian F. Smith, MA Owner, Principal Investigator Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road — Suite A — Phone: (858) 679-8218 — Fax: (858) 679-9896 — E-Mail: bsmith@bfsa-ca.com Education Master of Arts, History, University of San Diego, California 1982 Bachelor of Arts, History, and Anthropology, University of San Diego, California 1975 Professional Memberships Society for California Archaeology Experience Principal Investigator 1977–Present Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Poway, California Brian F. Smith is the owner and principal historical and archaeological consultant for Brian F. Smith and Associates. Over the past 32 years, he has conducted over 2,500 cultural resource studies in California, Arizona, Nevada, Montana, and Texas. These studies include every possible aspect of archaeology from literature searches and large-scale surveys to intensive data recovery excavations. Reports prepared by Mr. Smith have been submitted to all facets of local, state, and federal review agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, Mr. Smith has conducted studies for utility companies (Sempra Energy) and state highway departments (CalTrans). Professional Accomplishments These selected major professional accomplishments represent research efforts that have added significantly to the body of knowledge concerning the prehistoric life ways of cultures once present in the Southern California area and historic settlement since the late 18th century. Mr. Smith has been principal investigator on the following select projects, except where noted. Downtown San Diego Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Programs: Large numbers of downtown San Diego mitigation and monitoring projects, some of which included Broadway Block (2019), 915 Grape Street (2019), 1919 Pacific Highway (2018), Moxy Hotel (2018), Makers Quarter Block D (2017), Ballpark Village (2017), 460 16th Street (2017), Kettner and Ash (2017), Bayside Fire Station (2017), Pinnacle on the Park (2017), IDEA1 (2016), Blue Sky San Diego (2016), Pacific Gate (2016), Pendry Hotel (2015), Cisterra Sempra Office Tower (2014), 15th and Island (2014), Park and G (2014), Comm 22 (2014), 7th and F Street Parking (2013), Ariel Suites (2013), 13th and Marker (2012), Strata (2008), Hotel Indigo (2008), Lofts at 707 10th Avenue Project (2007), Breeza (2007), Bayside at the Embarcadero (2007), Aria (2007), Icon (2007), Vantage Pointe (2007), Aperture (2007), Sapphire Tower (2007), Lofts at 655 Sixth Avenue (2007), Metrowork (2007), The Legend (2006), The Mark (2006), Smart Corner (2006), Lofts at 677 7th Avenue (2005), Aloft on Cortez Hill (2005), Front and Beech Apartments (2003), Bella Via Condominiums (2003), Acqua Vista Residential Tower (2003), Northblock Lofts (2003), Westin Park Place Hotel (2001), Parkloft Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2 Apartment Complex (2001), Renaissance Park (2001), and Laurel Bay Apartments (2001). 1900 and 1912 Spindrift Drive: An extensive data recovery and mitigation monitoring program at the Spindrift Site, an important prehistoric archaeological habitation site stretching across the La Jolla area. The project resulted in the discovery of over 20,000 artifacts and nearly 100,000 grams of bulk faunal remains and marine shell, indicating a substantial occupation area (2013-2014). San Diego Airport Development Project: An extensive historic assessment of multiple buildings at the San Diego International Airport and included the preparation of Historic American Buildings Survey documentation to preserve significant elements of the airport prior to demolition (2017-2018). Citracado Parkway Extension: A still-ongoing project in the city of Escondido to mitigate impacts to an important archaeological occupation site. Various archaeological studies have been conducted by BFSA resulting in the identification of a significant cultural deposit within the project area. Westin Hotel and Timeshare (Grand Pacific Resorts): Data recovery and mitigation monitoring program in the city of Carlsbad consisted of the excavation of 176 one-square-meter archaeological data recovery units which produced thousands of prehistoric artifacts and ecofacts, and resulted in the preservation of a significant prehistoric habitation site. The artifacts recovered from the site presented important new data about the prehistory of the region and Native American occupation in the area (2017). The Everly Subdivision Project: Data recovery and mitigation monitoring program in the city of El Cajon resulted in the identification of a significant prehistoric occupation site from both the Late Prehistoric and Archaic Periods, as well as producing historic artifacts that correspond to the use of the property since 1886. The project produced an unprecedented quantity of artifacts in comparison to the area encompassed by the site, but lacked characteristics that typically reflect intense occupation, indicating that the site was used intensively for food processing (2014-2015). Ballpark Village: A mitigation and monitoring program within three city blocks in the East Village area of San Diego resulting in the discovery of a significant historic deposit. Nearly 5,000 historic artifacts and over 500,000 grams of bulk historic building fragments, food waste, and other materials representing an occupation period between 1880 and 1917 were recovered (2015-2017). Archaeology at the Padres Ballpark: Involved the analysis of historic resources within a seven-block area of the “East Village” area of San Diego, where occupation spanned a period from the 1870s to the 1940s. Over a period of two years, BFSA recovered over 200,000 artifacts and hundreds of pounds of metal, construction debris, unidentified broken glass, and wood. Collectively, the Ballpark Project and the other downtown mitigation and monitoring projects represent the largest historical archaeological program anywhere in the country in the past decade (2000-2007). 4S Ranch Archaeological and Historical Cultural Resources Study: Data recovery program consisted of the excavation of over 2,000 square meters of archaeological deposits that produced over one million artifacts, containing primarily prehistoric materials. The archaeological program at 4S Ranch is the largest archaeological study ever undertaken in the San Diego County area and has produced data that has exceeded expectations regarding the resolution of long-standing research questions and regional prehistoric settlement patterns. Charles H. Brown Site: Attracted international attention to the discovery of evidence of the antiquity of man in North America. Site located in Mission Valley, in the city of San Diego. Del Mar Man Site: Study of the now famous Early Man Site in Del Mar, California, for the San Diego Science Foundation and the San Diego Museum of Man, under the direction of Dr. Spencer Rogers and Dr. James R. Moriarty. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 3 Old Town State Park Projects: Consulting Historical Archaeologist. Projects completed in the Old Town State Park involved development of individual lots for commercial enterprises. The projects completed in Old Town include Archaeological and Historical Site Assessment for the Great Wall Cafe (1992), Archaeological Study for the Old Town Commercial Project (1991), and Cultural Resources Site Survey at the Old San Diego Inn (1988). Site W-20, Del Mar, California: A two-year-long investigation of a major prehistoric site in the Del Mar area of the city of San Diego. This research effort documented the earliest practice of religious/ceremonial activities in San Diego County (circa 6,000 years ago), facilitated the projection of major non-material aspects of the La Jolla Complex, and revealed the pattern of civilization at this site over a continuous period of 5,000 years. The report for the investigation included over 600 pages, with nearly 500,000 words of text, illustrations, maps, and photographs documenting this major study. City of San Diego Reclaimed Water Distribution System: A cultural resource study of nearly 400 miles of pipeline in the city and county of San Diego. Master Environmental Assessment Project, City of Poway: Conducted for the City of Poway to produce a complete inventory of all recorded historic and prehistoric properties within the city. The information was used in conjunction with the City’s General Plan Update to produce a map matrix of the city showing areas of high, moderate, and low potential for the presence of cultural resources. The effort also included the development of the City’s Cultural Resource Guidelines, which were adopted as City policy. Draft of the City of Carlsbad Historical and Archaeological Guidelines: Contracted by the City of Carlsbad to produce the draft of the City’s historical and archaeological guidelines for use by the Planning Department of the City. The Mid-Bayfront Project for the City of Chula Vista: Involved a large expanse of undeveloped agricultural land situated between the railroad and San Diego Bay in the northwestern portion of the city. The study included the analysis of some potentially historic features and numerous prehistoric Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Audie Murphy Ranch, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of 1,113.4 acres and 43 sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination; direction of field crews; evaluation of sites for significance based on County of Riverside and CEQA guidelines; assessment of cupule, pictograph, and rock shelter sites, co-authoring of cultural resources project report. February- September 2002. Cultural Resources Evaluation of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Otay Ranch Village 13 Project, San Diego County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of 1,947 acres and 76 sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on County of San Diego and CEQA guidelines; co- authoring of cultural resources project report. May-November 2002. Cultural Resources Survey for the Remote Video Surveillance Project, El Centro Sector, Imperial County: Project manager/director for a survey of 29 individual sites near the U.S./Mexico Border for proposed video surveillance camera locations associated with the San Diego Border barrier Project—project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; site identification and recordation; assessment of potential impacts to cultural resources; meeting and coordinating with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Border Patrol, and other government agencies involved; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. January, February, and July 2002. Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Menifee West GPA, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of nine sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; assessment of sites Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 4 for significance based on County of Riverside and CEQA guidelines; historic research; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. January-March 2002. Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed French Valley Specific Plan/EIR, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of two prehistoric and three historic sites—included project coordination and budgeting; survey of project area; Native American consultation; direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; cultural resources project report in prep. July-August 2000. Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Menifee Ranch, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of one prehistoric and five historic sites—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; feature recordation; historic structure assessments; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; historic research; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. February-June 2000. Salvage Mitigation of a Portion of the San Diego Presidio Identified During Water Pipe Construction for the City of San Diego, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis and authoring of cultural resources project report in prep. April 2000. Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Tyrian 3 Project, La Jolla, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. April 2000. Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Lamont 5 Project, Pacific Beach, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. April 2000. Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Reiss Residence Project, La Jolla, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. March-April 2000. Salvage Mitigation of a Portion of Site SDM-W-95 (CA-SDI-211) for the Poinsettia Shores Santalina Development Project and Caltrans, Carlsbad, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis and authoring of cultural resources project report in prep. December 1999-January 2000. Survey and Testing of Two Prehistoric Cultural Resources for the Airway Truck Parking Project, Otay Mesa, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of testing recovery program; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. December 1999-January 2000. Cultural Resources Phase I and II Investigations for the Tin Can Hill Segment of the Immigration and Naturalization Services Triple Fence Project Along the International Border, San Diego County, California: Project manager/director for a survey and testing of a prehistoric quarry site along the border—NRHP eligibility assessment; project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; feature recordation; meeting and coordinating with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. December 1999-January 2000. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 5 Mitigation of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Westview High School Project for the City of San Diego, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program including collection of material for specialized faunal and botanical analyses; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; co-authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. October 1999-January 2000. Mitigation of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Otay Ranch SPA-One West Project for the City of Chula Vista, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. September 1999-January 2000. Monitoring of Grading for the Herschel Place Project, La Jolla, California: Project archaeologist/ monitor— included monitoring of grading activities associated with the development of a single- dwelling parcel. September 1999. Survey and Testing of a Historic Resource for the Osterkamp Development Project, Valley Center, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; budget development; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July-August 1999. Survey and Testing of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Proposed College Boulevard Alignment Project, Carlsbad, California: Project manager/director —included direction of field crews; development and completion of testing recovery program; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. July-August 1999. Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources for the Palomar Christian Conference Center Project, Palomar Mountain, California: Project archaeologist—included direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July-August 1999. Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources at the Village 2 High School Site, Otay Ranch, City of Chula Vista, California: Project manager/director —management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July 1999. Cultural Resources Phase I, II, and III Investigations for the Immigration and Naturalization Services Triple Fence Project Along the International Border, San Diego County, California: Project manager/director for the survey, testing, and mitigation of sites along border—supervision of multiple field crews, NRHP eligibility assessments, Native American consultation, contribution to Environmental Assessment document, lithic and marine shell analysis, authoring of cultural resources project report. August 1997- January 2000. Phase I, II, and II Investigations for the Scripps Poway Parkway East Project, Poway California: Project archaeologist/project director—included recordation and assessment of multicomponent prehistoric and historic sites; direction of Phase II and III investigations; direction of laboratory analyses including prehistoric and historic collections; curation of collections; data synthesis; coauthorship of final cultural resources report. February 1994; March-September 1994; September-December 1995. Jennifer R.K. Stropes, MS, RPA Senior Archaeologist/Historian/Faunal Analyst Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road — Suite A — Phone: (858) 484-0915 — Fax: (858) 679-9896 — E-Mail: jenni@bfsa-ca.com Education Master of Science, Cultural Resource Management Archaeology 2016 St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology 2004 University of California, Santa Cruz Specialized Education/Training Archaeological Field School 2014 Pimu Catalina Island Archaeology Project Research Interests California Coastal / Inland Archaeology Zooarchaeology Historic Structure Significance Eligibility Historical Archaeology Human Behavioral Ecology Taphonomic Studies Experience Senior Archaeologist/Historian/Faunal Analyst Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. November 2006–Present Writing, editing, and producing cultural resource reports for both California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act compliance; recording and evaluating historic resources, including historic structure significance eligibility evaluations, Historical Resource Research Reports, Historical Resource Technical Reports, and Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record preparation; faunal, prehistoric, and historic laboratory analysis; construction monitoring management; coordinating field surveys and excavations; and laboratory management. UC Santa Cruz Monterey Bay Archaeology Archives Supervisor Santa Cruz, California December 2003–March 2004 Supervising intern for archaeological collections housed at UC Santa Cruz. Supervised undergraduate interns and maintained curated archaeological materials recovered from the greater Monterey Bay region. Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 2 Faunal Analyst, Research Assistant University of California, Santa Cruz June 2003–December 2003 Intern assisting in laboratory analysis and cataloging for faunal remains collected from CA-MNT-234. Analysis included detailed zoological identification and taphonomic analysis of prehistoric marine and terrestrial mammals, birds, and fish inhabiting the greater Monterey Bay region. Archaeological Technician, Office Manager Archaeological Resource Management January 2000-December 2001 Conducted construction monitoring, field survey, excavation, report editing, report production, monitoring coordination and office management. Certifications City of San Diego Certified Archaeological and Paleontological Monitor 40-Hour Hazardous Waste/Emergency Response OSHA 29 CFR 1910.120 (e) Scholarly Works Big Game, Small Game: A Comprehensive Analysis of Faunal Remains Recovered from CA-SDI-11,521, 2016, Master’s thesis on file at St. Cloud University, St. Cloud, Minnesota. Technical Reports Kraft, Jennifer R. 2012 Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the Pottery Court Project (TPM 36193) City of Lake Elsinore. Prepared for BRIDGE Housing Corporation. Report on file at the California Eastern Information Center. Kraft, Jennifer R. and Brian F. Smith 2016 Cultural Resources Survey and Archaeological Test Plan for the 1492 K Street Project City of San Diego. Prepared for Trestle Development, LLC. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2016 Focused Historic Structure Assessment for the Fredericka Manor Retirement Community City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California APN 566-240-27. Prepared for Front Porch Communities and Services – Fredericka Manor, LLC. Report on file at the City of Chula Vista Planning Department. 2016 Historic Structure Assessment for 8585 La Mesa Boulevard City of La Mesa, San Diego County, California. APN 494-300-11. Prepared for Silvergate Development. Report on file at the City of La Mesa Planning Department. Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 3 2016 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the 9036 La Jolla Shores Lane Project City of San Diego Project No. 471873 APN 344-030-20. Prepared for Eliza and Stuart Stedman. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2016 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Beacon Apartments Project City of San Diego Civic San Diego Development Permit #2016-19 APN 534-210-12. Prepared for Wakeland Housing & Development Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2016 A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the State/Columbia/Ash/A Block Project San Diego, California. Prepared for Bomel San Diego Equities, LLC. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2015 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer and Water Group 687B Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Ortiz Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2015 Cultural Resource Testing Results for the Broadway and Pacific Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for BOSA Development California, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2015 Historic Structure Assessment for the StorQuest Project, City of La Mesa, (APN 494-101-14-00). Prepared for Real Estate Development and Entitlement. Report on file at the City of La Mesa. 2015 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the 1905 Spindrift Remodel Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Brian Malk and Nancy Heitel. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2015 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Cisterra Sempra Office Tower Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for SDG-Left Field, LLC. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2015 Results of a Cultural Resources Testing Program for the 15th and Island Project City of San Diego. Prepared for Lennar Multifamily Communities. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Cesar Chavez Community College Project. Prepared for San Diego Community College District. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Grantville Trunk Sewer Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Cass Construction, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Pacific Beach Row Homes Project, San Diego, California. Prepared for Armstrong Builders, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer and Water Group 761 Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Burtech Pipeline. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2014 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer and Water Group 770 Project (Part of Group Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 4 3014), City of San Diego. Prepared for Ortiz Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2014 Historic Structure Assessment, 11950 El Hermano Road, Riverside County. Prepared for Forestar Toscana, LLC. Report on file at the California Eastern Information Center. 2014 Historic Structure Assessment, 161 West San Ysidro Boulevard, San Diego, California (Project No. 342196; APN 666-030-09). Prepared for Blue Key Realty. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2014 Historic Structure Assessment for 8055 La Mesa Boulevard, City of La Mesa (APN 470-582-11-00). Prepared for Lee Machado. Report on file at the City of La Mesa. 2014 Historic Structure Inventory and Assessment Program for the Watson Corporate Center, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for Watson Land Company. Report on file at the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center. 2014 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Celadon (9th and Broadway) Project. Prepared for BRIDGE Housing Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2014 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Comm 22 Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for BRIDGE Housing Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2014 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Pinnacle 15th & Island Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Pinnacle International Development, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2014 Phase I Cultural Resource Study for the Altman Residence Project, 9696 La Jolla Farms Road, La Jolla, California 92037. Prepared for Steve Altman. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Alvarado Trunk Sewer Phase III Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Ortiz Corporation General Engineering Contractors. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Alvarado Trunk Sewer Phase IIIA Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for TC Construction, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the F Street Emergency Water Main Replacement Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Orion Construction. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Harbor Drive Trunk Sewer Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Burtech Pipeline. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2013 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Old Town Community Church Project, 2444 Congress Street, San Diego, California 92110. Prepared for Soltek Pacific, Inc. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2013 Historic Structure Assessment, 2603 Dove Street, San Diego, California (APN) 452-674-32). Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 5 Prepared for Barzal and Scotti Real Estate Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2013 Historic Structure Assessment at the Western Christian School, 3105 Padua Avenue, Claremont, California 91711 (APN 8671-005-053). Prepared for Western Christian School. Report on file at the City of Claremont. 2013 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the 7th and F Street Parking Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for DZI Construction. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2013 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the 1919 Spindrift Drive Project. Prepared for V.J. and Uma Joshi. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. Smith, Brian F. and Jennifer R. Kraft 2016 Historical Resource Research Report for the 2314 Rue Adriane Building, San Diego, California Project No. 460562. Prepared for the Brown Studio. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2016 Historical Resource Research Report for the 4921 Voltaire Street Building, San Diego, California Project No. 471161. Prepared for Sean Gogarty. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2016 Historical Resource Research Report for the 5147 Hilltop Drive Building, San Diego, California Project No. 451707. Prepared for JORGA Home Design. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2016 Historical Resource Research Report for the Midway Drive Postal Service Processing and Distribution Center 2535 Midway Drive San Diego, California 92138 Project No. 507152. Prepared for Steelwave, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2016 Historic Resource Technical Report for 9036 La Jolla Shores Lane La Jolla, California Project No. 471873. Prepared for Eliza and Stuart Stedman. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2015 Cultural Resource Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Urban Discovery Academy Project. Prepared for Davis Reed Construction, Inc. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2015 Cultural Resource Survey and Archaeological Test Plan for the 520 West Ash Street Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Lennar Multifamily Communities. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2015 Cultural Resource Survey and Archaeological Test Plan for the 1919 Pacific Highway Project City of San Diego City Preliminary Review PTS #451689 Grading and Shoring PTS #465292. Prepared for Wood Partners. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2015 Historical Resource Research Report for 16929 West Bernardo Drive, San Diego, California. Prepared for Rancho Bernardo LHP, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2015 Historical Resource Research Report for the 2002-2004 El Cajon Boulevard Building, San Diego, Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 6 California 92014. Prepared for T.R. Hale, LLC. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2015 Historical Resource Research Report for the 4319-4321 Florida Street Building, San Diego, California 92104. Prepared for T.R. Hale, LLC. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2015 Historic Resource Technical Report for 726 Jersey Court San Diego, California Project No. 455127. Prepared for Chad Irwin. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2015 Islenair Historic Sidewalk Stamp Program for Sewer and Water Group 3014, City of San Diego. Prepared for Ortiz Corporation. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2014 Historical Resource Research Report for 2850 Sixth Avenue, San Diego, California (Project No. 392445). Prepared for Zephyr Partners – RE, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. Smith, Brian F., Tracy A. Stropes, Tracy M. Buday, and Jennifer R. Kraft 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 1900 Spindrift Drive – Cabana and Landscape Improvements Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Darwin Deason. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2015 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 1912 Spindrift Drive – Landscape Improvements Project, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Darwin Deason. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. Stropes, J.R.K. and Brian F. Smith 2020 Historical Resource Research Report for the 4143 Park Boulevard Building, San Diego, California 92103. Prepared for Bernardini Investments, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego. 2020 Historical Resource Research Report for the 6375 Avenida Cresta Building, San Diego, California 92037. Prepared for Jeffrey and Anne Blackburn. Report on file at the City of San Diego. 2019 Mitigation Monitoring Report for the 915 Grape Street Project, City of San Diego. Prepared for Bayview SD, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego Development Services Department. 2019 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Grove Residences Project, Rancho Santa Fe, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Beach City Builders, Inc. Report on file at the County of San Diego. 2019 Historical Resource Analysis Report for the 169 and 171 Fifth Avenue Buildings, City of Chula Vista, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Turner Impact Capital. Report on file at the City of Chula Vista. 2019 Historic Structure Assessment for the 1409 South El Camino Real Building, San Clemente, California. Prepared for Shoreline Dental Studio. Report on file at the City of San Clemente. 2019 Historical Resource Research Report for the 212 West Hawthorn Street Building, San Diego, California 92101. Prepared for Jacob Schwartz. Report on file at the City of San Diego. Jennifer R.K. Stropes Page 7 2019 Historical Resource Research Report for the 1142-1142 ½ Prospect Street Building, San Diego, California 92037. Prepared for LLJ Ventures. Report on file at the City of San Diego. 2019 Historical Resource Research Report for the 3000-3016 University Avenue/3901-3915 30th Street Building, San Diego, California 92037. Prepared for Cirque Hospitality. Report on file at the City of San Diego. 2019 Historic Structure Assessment for the 125 Mozart Avenue Building, Cardiff, California. Prepared for Brett Farrow. Report on file at the City of Encinitas. 2019 Cultural Resources Study for the Fontana Santa Ana Industrial Center Project, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for T&B Planning, Inc. Report on file at the California South Central Coastal Information Center. 2019 Historical Resource Technical Report for 817-821 Coast Boulevard South, La Jolla, California. Prepared for Design Line Interiors. Report on file at the City of San Diego. 2019 Historical Resource Research Report for the 3829 Texas Street Building, San Diego, California 92014. Prepared for Blue Centurion Homes. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2018 Historical Resource Research Report for the 3925-3927 Illinois Street Building, San Diego, California 92104. Prepared for Park Pacifica, LLC. Report on file at the City of San Diego. Contributing Author /Analyst 2015 Faunal Analysis and Report Section for Cultural Resource Data Recovery and Mitigation Monitoring Program for Site SDI-10,237 Locus F, Everly Subdivision Project, El Cajon, California by Tracy A. Stropes and Brian F. Smith. Prepared for Shea Homes. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2011 Faunal Analysis and Report Section for A Cultural Resource Data Recovery Program for SDI-4606 Locus B for St. Gabriel’s Catholic Church, Poway, California by Brian F. Smith and Tracy A. Stropes. Prepared for St. Gabriel’s Catholic Church. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2010 Faunal Analysis and Report Section for An Archaeological Study for the 1912 Spindrift Drive Project, La Jolla, California by Brian F. Smith and Tracy A. Stropes. Prepared for Island Architects. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2010 Faunal Analysis and Report Section for Results of a Cultural Mitigation and Monitoring Program for Robertson Ranch: Archaic and Late Prehistoric Camps near the Agua Hedionda Lagoon by Brian F. Smith. Prepared for McMillan Land Development. Report on file at the California South Coastal Information Center. 2009 Faunal Identification for “An Earlier Extirpation of Fur Seals in the Monterey Bay Region: Recent Findings and Social Implications” by Diane Gifford-Gonzalez and Charlotte K. Sunseri. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, Vol. 21, 2009 Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX B Site Record Forms (Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately) Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX C Archaeological Records Search Results (Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately) Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX D NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results (Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately) Cultural Resources Study for the Slover and Cypress Avenue Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX E Historic Maps